Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)

Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> Thu, 06 July 2017 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.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 B009413165C for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 5_kPjtaD95Ca for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 094E512EC0B for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id k192so9251902ith.1 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3tfmVw+bOKtYXnr4skVqyhb6q+bch3/ncXXG6avJrJs=; b=YYv+lnPmZFuXXxR3pv4T//UoccJBPVbXAwfskk5VdMT5K9+ViUhyB8kwZt6dTbd7lH /XJgfksA7eAojSZrCE4UyXxqZI5ZQLvgZ55o7tO6M63MRwTdnITBjZvrYuGa/o1ASQW2 NTVdP9u/XwvDCfRWvOXKMwcn89o7eNSKeACbpIoGFl1jmdBarS52Vz53zkDVNyzYirqc khhOPfcKxndX0ttpQEQw8fxQqLO0Ud9ifr5zkGXqlAEFqT1FZBqHYCI7ksfRvxHKWe1Z Y3b0rWy7LwYsIWVEn4IOBJPtuFFkBtqfOOZsKkB4yNt4soRIntfKez6+Evbc7Jqeti0G WF4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3tfmVw+bOKtYXnr4skVqyhb6q+bch3/ncXXG6avJrJs=; b=ez+J3zr6wo+asGfD/g+s2tuHjtdGqTvnHeqQwaZIPc06uMnK1xW/9C/yn/oS3Io7J5 +QCS3eSeyYCkZZjtuhOCnu6uvh1XSlcpTHmXbSKDhqR+LuRJeUD9mvWa6ja2aywClmGn KON2n/PzxklJDC1OWUo9JTKo8CRTWK2l9al++ugBgkP7B7z5HXhlXlQvrXy/1AApn3e+ bQ1xZxhV5WVMdwnMSJS6m2tRxSJ7XZgpxwi5J7RQlhvmmr9SY7kxF124Mkfgt4H0mLNn ajJdkfrWF356Guor+Y9yXtISqhb87K2rjzp330hDkMpcOtjLjfYPnz7FqPSYmqr4t7Qw Kx4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111EbSMFiuUrJ3UXJh9dYO907d3VlHqS39xs/5R5pvP31JDwkDGY 4Vu40jUfWvemP0i1Gk9v8RefRuuMVg==
X-Received: by 10.36.61.85 with SMTP id n82mr415354itn.2.1499359760323; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.162.70 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0B1CE01B-4FA3-4536-AF41-5DDC6F510C0D@cisco.com>
References: <20170619193929.GE22146@pfrc.org> <0B1CE01B-4FA3-4536-AF41-5DDC6F510C0D@cisco.com>
From: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 22:19:19 +0530
Message-ID: <CACi9rdsNm6mYcOj1p+dcP2dEKY9tj332b1ZG-B74GtS6gc5Yrw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f863ee79b5f0553a8e5d1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/71bVVQqPMLEWXqIdZz9DPe78bys>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 16:49:24 -0000

Hello Carlos,
     Thanks for your review comments. Please see inline [SPK].

Thanks
Santosh P K

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:

> Just one comment on these two documents, in regards to the state
> variables:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10#section-4.4.1
>
> 4.4.1.  New State Variables
>
>    A number of state variables are added to the base specification in
>    support of Multipoint BFD.
>
>       bfd.SessionType
>
>          The type of this session.  Allowable values are:
>
> CMP: However, this state (bfd.SessionType) variable is already defined in
> SBFD RFC 7880:
>

[SPK] Ok we can remove it here and give reference to RFC 7880. This draft
can use this state variable and need not say that new state variable.


>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7880#section-6.1
>
> 6.1.  New State Variables
>
>    A new state variable is added to the base specification in support
>    of S-BFD.
>
>    o  bfd.SessionType: This is a new state variable that describes
>       the type of a particular session.
>
>
> CMP: So, for draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint, I suggest a pointer to RFC 7880
> where bfd.SessionType is defined in the addition of new values to the
> existing variable.
>

[SPK] Sure.

>
> CMP: Similarly:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-
> active-tail-04#section-3.3.1
>
>       bfd.SessionType
>
>          The type of this session as defined in
>          [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint].  A new value introduced is:
>
> CMP: The pointer above should be to RFC 7880 also, and:
>
>       bfd.SilentTail
>
> CMP: But this is defined in draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10#section-4.4.1
>
>       bfd.SilentTail
>
> [SPK] I will take care of this.



> Thanks!
>
> — Carlos.
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>; wrote:
>
> Working Group,
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-04
>
>
> The BFD Multipoint documents have been stable for some time.  Prior
> discussion at meetings has suggested we have an implementation for the
> main
> protocol component.  Also per prior discussions, we split the active-tail
> component of the original multipoint document to permit implementors to not
> have to worry about implementing active-tail procedures if they weren't
> interested in that feature.
>
> We are starting an extended last call on these documents.  The WGLC will
> conclude on July 14.  This provides ample time for list discussion.  If
> necessary, the IETF-99 meeting may provide for opportunities to close any
> contentious technical points.  (BFD is not currently scheduled to meet.)
>
> One item I would like to kick off is the document status of the active-tail
> mechanism.  At this time, no one has implemented it that I am aware of.
> Discussion with our AD suggests that publishing the document with
> Experimental status may be reasonable to preserve the work that went into
> the proposal.
>
> -- Jeff
>
>
>