Re: Adoption call for draft-cw-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 16 August, 2020)

[Santosh P K <[e-mail]>]

Hello Authors,
    I read the document and I do have some questions.


In section 1 text below

"When using BFD echo function, it is not clear whether the devices using
echo function need to support the full BFD procotol, including maintaining
the state machine of BFD session as described in [RFC5880] and [RFC5881].
According to different understanding, there are two typical scenarios as
below:"

I think RFC 5880 section 6.4 "The Echo Function and Asymmetry" clearly
calls out BFD echo function is negotiated and also it suggests to keep BFD
state machine on both ends with a sedated interval. So not sure why you
mention it is not clear in RFC 5880.

Secondly if we do not need BFD async then it need not be BFD echo it can be
any packet which is has destination IP set to self IP can do that job isn't
it?

Thanks
Santosh P K




On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 6:34 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Working Group,
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cw-bfd-unaffiliated-echo/
>
> At the virtual IETF 108, Unaffiliated BFD Echo Function was presented.
> This
> is a followup of a presentation given at IETF 106.
>
> The authors have indicated they would like to have this work adopted by the
> BFD WG.  This begins the adoption call ending August 16.  Please respond to
> the mailing list with your thoughts on this adoption.
>
> It should be noted that this document overlaps work in the Broadband Forum
> (BBF) document TR-146.  As noted in the presentation, the BBF document
> lacks
> some clarity and also doesn't discuss interactions with BFD
> implementations.
> This draft has good clarifications with regard to implementations of this
> mechanism when the a BFD Echo-capable implementation is used.
>
> This raises two points to consider as part of adoption:
> - This document with its current goals would Update RFC 5880.
> - The status of this document would need to be Proposed Standard.
>
> -- Jeff
>
>