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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 29 October 2018 23:52 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 F1C2213102B; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 a7_r7fk9Idl2; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC83E131001; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1588; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540857174; x=1542066774; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=WUqsTgfXcEusxSnrG26uBGtiDeNMaFGJHmusT76LAmc=; b=L7u7zKT5AWR/rPc5E3TFIYmPNBDHRuLPV/mZWYGhYnAA5x5t1ytdAvZd 9iYVNdyFZMm1M6QAk1vC6a5nGhHadJWRXWR747T6WST/heeOllV9Dno7O oMEdTU+NI6BoCHLdkYMzwimzbJFtGyZK1LAOMJDge79eWWIGI0KzgJN8q A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AEAAC+nNdb/51dJa1kGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwGCBGZ/KAqMA4wZgg2XIIF6CwEBI4RJAoMtITQ?= =?us-ascii?q?NDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhToBAQEBAzo/DAQCAQgOAwQBAR8QMh0IAgQBDQUIE4M?= =?us-ascii?q?HggEPqzCEPkCFHwWLZxeBQT+EI4MbAgMBhzgCiSqVXwkChmiKEiCBUoR3iX6?= =?us-ascii?q?McIoFAhEUgSYdOIFVcBWDJ4sZhT5vjAaBHwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,442,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="473175726"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Oct 2018 23:52:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9TNqrOH006585 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Oct 2018 23:52:54 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 18:52:53 -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 18:52:53 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
CC: "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/RB6U25M1Q
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 23:52:53 +0000
Message-ID: <75992c66b45345f59e420d832d1b54b8@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <20181029155232.GN12336@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20181029155232.GN12336@pfrc.org>
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/6pOhBF9VYj5ZffCFE-d1q9Lwpiw>
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: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 23:52:57 -0000

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