RE: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim

["Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

Many thanks for taking time to provide your comments.

Thanks!

-Nobo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 9:57 PM
> To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim
> 
> Hi Nobo, et. al,
> please find my notes in-line and tagged GIM>>.
> 
> 	Regards,
> 		Greg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Nobo Akiya
> (nobo)
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 8:04 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim
> 
> [Speaking as an individual S-BFD contributor]
> 
> Hi BFD WG,
> 
> There were couple of questions I need your input on draft-akiya-bfd-
> seamless-alert-discrim.
> 
> 
> (1) Should the "extended" S-BFD use cases move to draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-
> use-case?
> 
> My opinion is yes. Once the "extended" S-BFD use cases have been
> incorporated into draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case, then we should try to
> move draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case forward.
> 
> How does the WG feel about this?
> 
> GIM>> I think it makes sense to have use cases related to S-BFD in one
> document. Support.
> 
> (2) Should the alert discriminator proposal move to draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-
> base?
> 
> My opinion is no . Instead we should position this as an optional feature of
> S-BFD (hence separate document than the base), especially considering we
> likely need to think through additional security concerns raised by this.
> 
> A question was raised by Greg on how does a node find out if the target
> supports the optional alert discriminator or not. We can define a mandatory
> diagnostic value that must be implemented when the alert discriminator is
> implemented. One can send an S-BFD control packet with the alert
> discriminator with this diagnostic value to check if the target supports the
> alert discriminator mechanism.
> 
> How does the WG feel about this?
> 
> GIM>> After discussing structure of BFD for multi-point networks document
> I realized that keeping protocol extensions in separate documents has its
> value, especially if an extension is optional. Hence I change my previously
> stated position and support progress alert discriminator document
> separately from S-BFD base.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Nobo