RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-04.txt

[Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nobo,
thank you for so precisely and eloquently formulating it:
      Knowing exactly what aspect is being questioned for removal may provide a better base for good discussions.
I see several possible scenarios:
*       keep the scope of the document as-is;
*       extract and move to an appendix as informational/historical description of tail monitoring but keep all new variables and states in standard part as currently defined (dormant but readily available);
*       rip off everything related to tail monitoring from the standard part (major, huge undertaking IMO).

Have I missed any other option?

        Regards,
                Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Nobo Akiya (nobo)
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 7:48 AM
To: Santosh P K; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Jeffrey Haas; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-04.txt

Santosh,

It will helpful to clarify exactly what you mean by "active tail".

- Do you intend to keep tail reporting of the failure (bfd.ReportTailDown=1)?
- Is it just unicast poll from head that is being questioned for removal?

Knowing exactly what aspect is being questioned for removal may provide a better base for good discussions.

Thanks!

-Nobo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Santosh P K [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:39 PM
> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Nobo Akiya (nobo); Jeffrey Haas; rtg-
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-04.txt
>
> Thanks Hendreickx for your reply.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-
> lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 12:29 AM
> To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); Santosh P K; Jeffrey Haas; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-04.txt
>
> In certain environment the tracking of the tails is happening by other means.
> Example is Multicast VPN using MP-BGP.
>
> On 09/10/14 17:38, "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> >[With Chair Hat On]
> >
> >Dear WG,
> >
> >The topic of keeping or removing the active tail from
> >draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint is one of the last couple of topics that
> >we, as a WG, need to resolve for this document.
> >
> >Whether or not we keep or remove the active tail, leaves will be able
> >to detect the failure of the multicast tree, which allows protections
> >such as live-live.
> >
> >What is essentially different:
> >
> >Keeping the active tail - Allows ingress/root to keep track of leaves.
> >
> >Removing the active tail - Ingress/root will not be able to keep
> >track of leaves.
> >
> >If there's any requirements for the ingress/root to trigger some
> >protections, then active tail becomes a requirement. If there is no
> >such requirements, then the active tail is an unnecessary portion of
> >this document.
> >
> >It'll be beneficial to hear your thoughts/comments to help gauge
> >where we are on this matter as a WG.
> >
> >Comments/thoughts?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >-Nobo
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> >> Santosh P K
> >> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 9:27 AM
> >> To: Santosh P K; Jeffrey Haas; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-04.txt
> >>
> >> Sorry for typo in my precious mail  "active tale" it is "active tail".
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Santosh P K
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> >> Santosh P K
> >> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 6:22 PM
> >> To: Jeffrey Haas; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-04.txt
> >>
> >> Hello All,
> >>    I am seeking comments on active tale section of this document. I
> >>spoke to  few implementers and found that no one really finds use
> >>case for active tale.
> >> Does anyone on this forum feel that we might need active tale? If
> >>there are  no uses cases then we can move active tale section to
> >>appendix? We would  like to make all the changes before IETF 91 and
> >>push this for RFC. Any  suggestions?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Santosh P K
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> >>Jeffrey Haas
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 7:38 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-04.txt
> >>
> >> Note that this consists mostly of a re-publish with Santosh as the
> >>new editor.
> >> (And moving from .nroff to .xml.)
> >>
> >> In the next few weeks, Santosh will be working with known
> >>implementors to  edit the document to match implementation.  Ideally
> >>these edits will be  complete prior to the next IETF session in
> >>Honolulu.  This will put us a bit  past our original milestone for
> >>publication, but still much better on track  than many of our
> >>previous documents.
> >>
> >> -- Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 05:55:37PM -0700, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>wrote:
> >> >
> >> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> >> > Internet-Drafts
> >> directories.
> >> >  This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding
> >> > Detection
> >> Working Group of the IETF.
> >> >
> >> >         Title           : BFD for Multipoint Networks
> >> >         Authors         : Dave Katz
> >> >                           Dave Ward
> >> >                           Santosh Pallagatti
> >> >  Filename        : draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-04.txt
> >> >  Pages           : 27
> >> >  Date            : 2014-08-12
> >> >
> >> > Abstract:
> >> >    This document describes extensions to the Bidirectional Forwarding
> >> >    Detection (BFD) protocol for its use in multipoint and multicast
> >> >    networks.  Comments on this draft should be directed to rtg-
> >> >    [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint/
> >> >
> >> > There's also a htmlized version available at:
> >> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-04
> >> >
> >> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >> > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-04
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> >> > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> >> tools.ietf.org.
> >> >
> >> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >