Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Reshad.

Since the majority of the content is nits, Greg can simply address them as
Editor.

The Security Considerations issues raised in the base spec may deserve a bit
more explicit Working Group discussion:

: The shepherd has concerns wrt security: 
: a) We should have the ability, e.g. via configuration, to prevent the number
: of MultipointTail sessions from exceeding the number of expected streams.
: Otherwise 1 misbehaving head could use up all the MultipointTail session
: resources on a tail.
: b) A misbehaving head which changes My Discriminator for a MultipointHead
: session will cause tails to create many MultipointTail sessions (4.13.2). We
: should consider adding a check to see if we have a MultipointTail session
: based on source address and the identify of the multipoint tree with a
: different discriminator?

-- Jef

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:42:02PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I forgot to mention that last week I did the shepherd write-up for both drafts.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint/shepherdwriteup/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail/shepherdwriteup/
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 11:01 PM
> To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
> 
> Hi Reshad,
> sorry for my sloppiness. Fixed.
> 
> Regards, Greg
> 
> On Jan 16, 2018 7:05 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> In 4.4.1 of MP, “A number values of the state variable are added to the…”, looks like there is a missing “of”?
> 
> For the active-tail draft I haven’t completed my review of -06 yet: there are parts which aren’t clear to me and I don’t know yet if this is because there’s something missing in the document or whether it’s just lack of understanding on my part.
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 9:25 PM
> To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
> 
> Hi Reshad, et. al,
> the attached are diff to highlight updates to BFD in Multipoint Network and the working copy of Active Tails. After checking through the Active Tails draft, I've found no additional changes to make resulting from removing all references to bfd.SilentTail from BFD in Multipoint Networks draft. Your review and comments are most welcome.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Reshad,
> thank you. I'll add it into the working version to others updates. I believe changes to active tails be more extensive as now it must introduce the bfd.SilentTail variable, not just its new state. Will work on that now.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> I am fine with the change below.
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 2:20 PM
> To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
> 
> Hi Reshad,
> I think this is very good idea. Then in section 4.13.3 Transmitting BFD Packets of BFD for Multipoint Networks should be edited. Perhaps the following be acceptable:
> OLD TEXT
> 
>    A system MUST NOT transmit any BFD Control packets if bfd.SilentTail
> 
>    is 1.
> NEW TEXT
> 
>    A system MUST NOT transmit any BFD Control packets if bfd.SessionType is
> 
>    MultipointTail.
> 
> Will look into related changes in active tails if others agree with the proposal in general.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Regarding bfd.SilentTail, I am wondering if instead it should be removed from MP draft  (always 1 in there) and kept as new state variable in active-tail?
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 9:32 AM
> To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> The changes for bfd.SessionType (in both drafts) look good.
> 
> bfd.SilentTail is fine in multipoint but in active-tail it is in the New State Variables section.  It should be in 3.3.2 instead and there should be a reference to the multipoint draft.
> 
> Also, I am in the process of doing the shepherd write-up. So you don’t have to push these changes immediately, you can wait for the review, up to you.
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 1:47 AM
> To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
> 
> Looks good to me, Greg. Thanks.
> Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
> Excuze typofraphicak errows
> 
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 15:32, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Reshad and Carlos,
> thank you for your suggestions. Please check the diffs with proposed changes to BFD Multipoint and BFD Multipoint with active tails drafts (attached).
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Reshad, Greg,
> 
> Indeed, it seems the content of the section is updated, but the title is misleading. The same applies to the active-tail doc:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-06#section-3.3.1
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12#section-4.4.1
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —
> Carlos Pignataro, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."
> 
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Section 4.4.1 still says “New state variables” for bfd.SessionType and the text still starts with “A number of state variables and their values are added…”, so I misinterpreted that as bfd.SessionType is being added as new state variable.
> 
> Please consider splitting this section in 2 parts for clarification e.g. 4.4.1 for New State Variables (bfd.SilentTail) and 4.4.2 for New State Variable Values (bfd.SessionType).
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12#section-4.4.1
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Monday, January 15, 2018 at 6:17 PM
> To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
> 
> Hi Reshad,
> I thought I've addressed them as per Carlos suggestion. Have I missed anything?
> 
> Regards, Greg
> 
> On Jan 15, 2018 3:00 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> The changes for bfd.SessionType (it’s not a new state variable but uses what’s defined in RFC7880) weren’t made in the latest revision.
> 
> Greg, do you plan on addressing this soon? Or there’s no consensus on this topic yet?
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> On 2017-12-20, 12:09 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Greg,
> 
>     On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:17:02PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>     > Hi Carlos and Jeff,
>     > thank you for responding so expediently. I think we've reached the rough
>     > consensus. Attached are the diffs for both BFD documents and the updated
>     > copies. Please let me know if the changes being made have addressed all the
>     > comments received during the WGLC. I'll then upload new versions.
> 
>     I believe this covers all points I've seen on the mailing list to date.
> 
>     Please push the updates.
> 
>     We'll have further discussion about the need for a registry in conjunction
>     with the Yang module implications discussion.
> 
>     -- Jeff
> 
>     > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     [...]
>     > > At this point it is also worth noting that the session type has no
>     > > centralized location covering their enumerations.  This leads to two
>     > > interesting observations:
>     > > - We could have an IANA registry for such things.  However, I'm not sure
>     > >   this is really need.  But this also means:
>     > > - Here's another case why some pieces of the BFD yang module likely shoudl
>     > >   be IANA maintained.  In this case, the bfd-path-type identity as the
>     > >   relevant example.
> 
> 
> <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-06.txt - draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-07.txt.html>
> <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12.txt - draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-13.txt.html>
> 
> 
>