Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Tue, 16 January 2018 06:47 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@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 177A012F2AE for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:47:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 4Kb1naqrpPkR for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8699B12F2A6 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:47:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21561; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1516085269; x=1517294869; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=eGx3vgIVHJ7+Yw816jQ5jZQzgHvsY2WPECSg72p4sic=; b=Bfe+bk0KZ0r5I6ml15usHxg+6joUa33Ta/bvFjiKogDatsdNRzHJSiIC Lingjq6zvWDAWQwyd8eA10ciL7occmpmwrbRWNyZGTrnqjHv3wUbuJeLj iWBhOWyoEqyE0PVI+5CSQkSBAbcbSnvrFS8eilGvgG68OV60ckV4lID5Y o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BGAgAwn11a/4MNJK1UCRkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEHAQEBAQGCSndmdCeEE5kDggKJBohVhVGCFgolhRYCGoQ4QRYBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQFrKIUjAQEBAwEjSwsFCwIBBgIRAwECAScDAgICHxEUCQgCBA4FiU9MAw0IE?= =?us-ascii?q?IpdnXCCJ4c6DYIEAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWGUYFXgWkpgwWCa0Q?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQIBgURBCRaCYTGCFCAFmXKJNT0CiAqIPYUCghmGHYoFgVWNPkCIegIRGQGBO?= =?us-ascii?q?wEmATGBUG8VGSQqAYF/ghuCPHgBAY1MAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,367,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217";a="125815855"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2018 06:47:48 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0G6lmDF021971 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:47:48 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 01:47:47 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 01:47:47 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
Thread-Topic: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
Thread-Index: AQHTdDbMbGs0pYB83U6MWgKspk/ChqNFQ0wAgAAZy52AAXjVgIADdUQAgADmnoCAAGfGAIABPX0AgCk9toCAAASmAIAAK1QAgAAqpQCAACNqgP//sJnx
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:47:47 +0000
Message-ID: <44B4B608-7A2B-4E95-A5F7-116896C57028@cisco.com>
References: <20171213172443.GC8708@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmX6PHczvwEzc4UNqBioK8qv=wTfyeHg9j04EJNe1Uv0wA@mail.gmail.com> <746F74E2-7DFC-41A7-879F-4054CF95475C@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWqGPTkBek+a0N+BaFr9QZ+xEKvWT5oRxPBuhFsQcizcw@mail.gmail.com> <38B53F72-66B9-4E8F-8BCE-C28A2C283D38@cisco.com> <20171219160537.GH8708@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmWQTH9N9cCOHJ_9BgvfDGLGFgrsKrMj8mmqGm-V=5KLSw@mail.gmail.com> <20171220171322.GE8708@pfrc.org> <7C073038-8E7D-4735-82A4-97592AA9B34B@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmXanVpKKmyXP9+yuh4z2H4qAeN4jH2xEMx7ddiSHViV3g@mail.gmail.com> <DB3B0F10-4BD8-4096-8875-2E476064E77A@cisco.com> <491F0297-F2AB-4377-A013-1050FDBBB709@cisco.com>, <CA+RyBmVXO0o09k-DYY69E2sKdKiU5YBf-h=PnBgerx+HF=ryfg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmVXO0o09k-DYY69E2sKdKiU5YBf-h=PnBgerx+HF=ryfg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_44B4B6087A2B4E95A5F7116896C57028ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/BEOXhw4LTIEdjaxbq-9CPfKzxSI>
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: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:47:52 -0000

Looks good to me, Greg. Thanks.

Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
Excuze typofraphicak errows

On Jan 16, 2018, at 15:32, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> 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) <cpignata@cisco.com<mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>> 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, carlos@cisco.com<mailto:carlos@cisco.com>

“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) <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>> 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 <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, January 15, 2018 at 6:17 PM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com<mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
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)" <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>> 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" <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> 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 <jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> 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>