Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 20 December 2017 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.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 B59AA1270A3 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:09:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 apVnXpZACO3B for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:09:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EFDA124BFA for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:09:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0A6661E35A; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:13:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:13:22 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
Message-ID: <20171220171322.GE8708@pfrc.org>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmWQTH9N9cCOHJ_9BgvfDGLGFgrsKrMj8mmqGm-V=5KLSw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Ebaq6TthN3WcXZgmhZD2VHW7JIo>
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:09:18 -0000

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.