IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Some comments to the authors of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 28 February 2022 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 447543A109E; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 03:39:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hWGh4qs70X7q; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 03:39:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C553A1080; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 03:39:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B84871E341; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:39:44 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7A811ADF-4560-4F97-91F4-513F172FFF65"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Subject: Re: Some comments to the authors of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmU_FAPf2OLv_aWnf48TATd4ddLgjTFWoKxR5xY4FL+YMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:39:44 -0500
Cc: Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, "draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <C1D5204A-C691-411F-A3BE-9FD9376563E7@pfrc.org>
References: <CA+RyBmX8oAQFqJMjVhcj_78wYfrvz+afnSoP2-VjWyfCEunqmQ@mail.gmail.com> <381777191.1553826.1645979075642@mail.yahoo.com> <20220227225309.GA2990@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmU_FAPf2OLv_aWnf48TATd4ddLgjTFWoKxR5xY4FL+YMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/7qKXZRGRdxTU_sKFNE5lluz7mz0>
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, 28 Feb 2022 11:39:49 -0000

Greg,

> On Feb 27, 2022, at 7:54 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> of course, the WG can send the document IESG on its current track. What is not clear to me is what is being standardized by the document. It appears that everything described is a local behavior that does not affect any other BFD system. Is my understanding correct? Or I'm missing something?
> I also have some follow-up notes to share with the authors.

See the cited message from the OPS AD.

I suggest not spending energy fighting this point in the Working Group.  Feel free to direct your questions directly to Rob.

-- Jeff


> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/vOMZl9ucZwNKu5_MHHti-4ImOjQ/# <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/vOMZl9ucZwNKu5_MHHti-4ImOjQ/#>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email