Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 15 January 2018 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 7646612ECB6 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:17:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 BFei8KKQDY-l for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (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 380E912ECB8 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:17:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id h137so15167846lfe.8 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:17:35 -0800 (PST)
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=ZW1gcRGaEdqlO43nvAjK7Aw0E/v2Mv6h2nb2SEt01Sg=; b=GubuDhDS5sAo+I0trqEP90xcxPz0/1yQzsiPHMhb7BhUiiDXwSW56zkBpN+gX16epb IQv3d8nGV+81Ocih8UNsF//5GcIS+xW7bVbkLZxjKWriDs2YuA44jb/MBcRTgX+Mcz99 thwZT5C7bgcYMQgNLmv3QHVUYSnglbX4koOlFKNRCU4dsu7OLZajLrN/J8L7WkBM98uR K+/SJo9frJdy95WVWcDDD3W+WwHfnldnPjyu94kaswFS4Ru9B8ZrpxLabBN5GoaCO3Qq /czgpG6LNveCGAns49XLwB27sXrzTU3R+M4xMnzCUC5poqWFMmw+X3tK5XCeEp2+5JCi /lHw==
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=ZW1gcRGaEdqlO43nvAjK7Aw0E/v2Mv6h2nb2SEt01Sg=; b=tVFKeHXpq6lZKKm+m1SUiCq+DXUNR+gnOcOBsYeirsP6jIFjXSbARd0zITPPh5MPpQ 3gvsoHbEQlHA6lEt/vorvQGbwAOLMsSGNsQK5EVpIHwo4agdYiGJIO9ZdLo/TPnjNWBe IWYDr4SapdtBsyrarZ6l3cKuqLp88uXIm5/XXQyusPqIDkrfDIp8YBF7QD/BYdvH/OH8 /HMoLec2To7X6/yTPx9s2hXAlzRx64XrnY9Xi0wR2QPCvpHCGHWpidwym8Ff1cGpiq9l kR1vn7pMAnhxkIKmMzhxezQhPiUPU40rOcoPiriK0BgERbPd+VwHpSHZ6bQQPH4ePH4c lpvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdN5dSRcfTdOlvH0gHe4Ht4JgA4vdGYJpQaS7kEGrYUspxMdodk YAOxoUMpgs6mu7EK+NOxWf9/PoAdy2K+HQ0+hac=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosJdgQUGCQgYCrCTkBvUBVncOBgIIj+Oj9md6sSb+vs97RoS71CVvkaP17V7WJC8ixAYkOOxAxRYWU296JGCpk=
X-Received: by 10.46.68.11 with SMTP id r11mr6142483lja.13.1516058253386; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:17:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.32.136 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:17:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.46.32.136 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:17:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7C073038-8E7D-4735-82A4-97592AA9B34B@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>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:17:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXanVpKKmyXP9+yuh4z2H4qAeN4jH2xEMx7ddiSHViV3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1942dea6ea060562d8d101"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/CK6DVUpQiNY9nIOOVY8ygE9fNGE>
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: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 23:17:39 -0000

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>;
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 on behalf of 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>;
> 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.
>
>
>
>