Re: A question about RFC5884

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 31 July 2017 17:12 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 91E221326E5 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 EGeRjLpBgALA for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976B41326C3 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1C7661E380; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:13:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:13:06 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: A question about RFC5884
Message-ID: <20170731171305.GQ24942@pfrc.org>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE291842ADE@dggeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> <MWHPR01MB2768DA6F22D6F8CDF11700E8FAA30@MWHPR01MB2768.prod.exchangelabs.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE291843FC3@dggeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> <D5915F0F.2C0CF5%rrahman@cisco.com> <1E6F72A4-2141-42CB-932A-88FD93EB6B94@cisco.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE291844EF6@dggeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> <6263E0A6-EE08-43BB-A845-BCF5788D2A14@cisco.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2918486DA@dggeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> <EC7807EA-D9EF-4B97-B956-D6131912C0FE@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EC7807EA-D9EF-4B97-B956-D6131912C0FE@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Hf-JiWsgv_s0vz-BAfyYjpjGngQ>
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, 31 Jul 2017 17:12:54 -0000

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:25:38AM +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> I had not suggested it, but I think that idea has merit. If there are enough updates needed to the spec based on additional running-code learning, or ambiguities that are causing interoperable confusion, the net of a -biz can be positive.
> 
> When that same idea crossed my mind, I thought that the question should be part of a larger consideration from the chairs of maturity, pipeline, and advancement of BFD specs, and not taken in isolation. 5884 seems to require localized fixes only.
> 

Thus far my reading of the thread is that when you pedantically consider
each of the involved specs, we're not to the point where we'd need to update
the procedures in 5884.  The issues seem to occur if you're willing to "read
between the lines".

As a reminder, when the RFCs appear to be broken or unclear, the Errata
feature available in the datatracker can allow issues to be filed.  These
issues are considered when it's time to update the RFC.

-- Jeff