IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with COMMENT)

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Thu, 05 July 2018 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@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 DE3E2130E29; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 05:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-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 VgDLU3-fHNtW; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 05:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BA6E1277BB; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 05:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2944; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1530794347; x=1532003947; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=keWzRBnbWutp/YNK66Ef6moRpBL1POGm9kdOsG+uyJ4=; b=E9w/wpuuOGq3uQ8yV7dqQUOnY2yESGadZ4GkXor2c2XyS2196mTZMc4n uitEUlTML6Q9hZxLuOkTKUiusJro3r9YuF5KX55zsL+mT4rf5e29k7Fv5 ztZHVyJKj13Oa09KLcM2qK3RJqiS+C4fCAgWg3Rl16JcYCj/rqmnGBTAw Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BUAgBDED5b/40NJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNJYn8oCoNwiASMM4Flg1qReBSBZgsjCYRAAheCFiE0GAECAQECAQECbRwMhTcGIxFFEAIBCA4MAiYCAgIwFRACBAENBYMgAYF/D6hOghyISYE1BYELh2KBVj+BDgEnDIJcgxgCAQIBgSkBEgEfFyECgkcxgiQCh2GRawkChgSJGoFAhAyIC4o1hy0CERMBgSQdOCY7WBEIcBVlAYI+ilk7hT0BbwGBFI1BgR8BgRkBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,312,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="138337209"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jul 2018 12:39:06 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w65Cd6kX019076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Jul 2018 12:39:06 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 07:39:05 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 07:39:05 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "jhaas@pfrc.org" <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>, "bfd-chairs@ietf.org" <bfd-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUE+cC8YxduUX0C0WUkSFh1oT2pKSAo0CA
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 12:39:05 +0000
Message-ID: <490A33FD-E9F4-4798-B770-7D43BB962F8E@cisco.com>
References: <153074359709.27286.9248456135858358472.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <153074359709.27286.9248456135858358472.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.b.0.180311
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.48]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <70D01F2F928EE84C90C4869551C2A6FF@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Fb2RN8KrZF2ao7t_6FJDI3a0RHA>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 12:39:10 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for the review, please see inline <RR>.

On 2018-07-04, 6:33 PM, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

    Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: No Objection
    
    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)
    
    
    Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    
    
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Rich version of this review at:
    https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D6374
    
    
    
    COMMENTS
    S 2.1.4.
    >              Minimum TTL of incoming BFD control packets.
    >   
    >   2.1.4.  MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels
    >   
    >      For MPLS-TE tunnels, BFD is configured under the MPLS-TE tunnel since
    >      the desired failure detection parameters is a property of the MPLS-TE
    
    "parameters are"
    
<RR> Change made, will be in the next rev.
    
    S 2.8.
    >   
    >   2.8.  BFD over LAG hierarchy
    >   
    >      A "lag" node is added under the "bfd" node in control-plane-protocol.
    >      The configuration and operational state data for each BFD LAG session
    >      is under this "lag" node.
    
    There seems to be a lot of replication (e.g., number of sessions). Is
    it possible to somehow refactor this so that's common?
    
    <RR> There is replication in that the different modules have similar information as you pointed out. But this is done via groupings, so the information such as number of sessions, number of sessions up etc is defined once and used in multiple locations.

Regards,
Reshad.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email