IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Tue, 30 October 2018 03:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C02C12777C; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65i9EPNwKcrz; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33776124D68; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4048; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540870955; x=1542080555; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=dctXu8ZNnpRbpOGDhZFWqpWW8S+yFnz9isuLjAWsi04=; b=GeMkvMqcnRbK4f+7mFvqLkWaEyqHHwi65o3/El98ViNEMpE8aDdKBhzC kI0v5/7j7AVbPqbvi/I7krmMQ2RbApfbqAn5Qeep7BtMQbU2UOlzY3ucR iqKIFzl0ELj395xuzcRxO0PJN31j5xnq3kRw7rSCxYNFVvXIA2u938bT6 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ASAADE0tdb/5FdJa1kGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwGCBGZ/FRMKg2uIGIwZgg2DQJNggXoLAQEjhEkCF4MWITQNDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhToBAQEBAgEjEUUMBAIBCBEEAQEBAgImAgICMBUICAIEDgUIE4MHgXkID6ligS6EPkCFHgWBC4pcF4FBP4QjgxsCAwGEYYJXAokqlV8JAoZoihIggVKEd4l+jHCKBQIRFIEmHTiBVXAVgyeCJheIXIU+b4wGgR8BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,442,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="473019312"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Oct 2018 03:42:27 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9U3gRHl029728 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:42:28 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:42:27 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:42:27 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
CC: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org" <draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted
Thread-Index: AQHUb5+IJwTkiuXyz0u8RiYKF4/RB6U25M1QgAB3yID//8fNMA==
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:42:27 +0000
Message-ID: <bb6394f856d64f8da62f9507086bd710@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <20181029155232.GN12336@pfrc.org> <75992c66b45345f59e420d832d1b54b8@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <92F496D8-8260-4065-B03A-F967BC146324@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <92F496D8-8260-4065-B03A-F967BC146324@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.37.28]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/6DzSXiuSkuWLmkbfiHwCbnbd19A>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:42:37 -0000

Naiming -

I did not say that implementations had done exactly what you propose in this draft. I said:

" there are implementations which have addressed this issue w/o requiring any changes to their BFD implementation"

There is more than one way to solve this problem. :-)

I raise this point because an implementation which has already addressed the issue has little motivation to move to a different solution (such as you propose).
Which is why I am OK if this is merely informational - but not otherwise.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Naiming Shen (naiming)
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 6:58 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; draft-chen-bfd-
> unsolicited@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted
> 
> 
> I’m not aware of an implementation taking in the inbound BFD packets,
> then dynamically seting up a session to the received packet sender end-
> point.
> As Jeff mentioned Redback planed on this, but didn’t implement. So there
> most
> likely needs some BFD implementation changes.
> 
> Regards,
> - Naiming
> 
> > On Oct 29, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The problem the draft addresses is valid and makes sense to address. But I
> know there are implementations which have addressed this issue w/o
> requiring any changes to their BFD implementation - so I am not sure how
> popular this solution will be.
> >
> > So long as this stays Informational I think it is fine to adopt. I would not be
> as enthused if this is moved to Standards track.
> >
> >   Les
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
> >> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:53 AM
> >> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> >> Cc: draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org
> >> Subject: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted
> >>
> >> Working Group,
> >>
> >> Reviewing my notes, I was remiss in sending out an adoption request for
> >> draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted (Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications).
> >>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited/
> >>
> >> This relatively minor change from the RFC 5880 spec is implemented by at
> >> least one vendor for static route configuration.  Its security
> >> considerations already cover what I believe to be the main concern with
> the
> >> procedural change.
> >>
> >> There's a minor point to resolve regarding the document's status -
> currently
> >> Informational - with our AD.
> >>
> >> Please indicate whether you'd support adopting this draft as a Working
> >> Group
> >> document.
> >>
> >> Authors, please indicate if you're aware of any applicable IPR on it.
> >>
> >> This adoption request will also end on Friday, November 9, IETF 103
> Friday.
> >>
> >> -- Jeff & Reshad
> >

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email