Re: PIM BFD RFCOGyan,

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 18 October 2019 16:40 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 8CDDA120103 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 MadF1qpXGlRC for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC4512000F for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9B1441E2D3; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:43:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:43:20 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, mankamis@cisco.com, xu.benchong@zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: PIM BFD RFCOGyan,
Message-ID: <20191018164320.GA23366@pfrc.org>
References: <37FED5C8-F400-4C72-B72E-0552AD398895@gmail.com> <F4C0E27E-A90D-450D-99F1-FD985E9639D8@gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXZYTaZWQf0VLBTPKM+ZXEvWEOucGHUeQs9pEb5E3shGg@mail.gmail.com> <F8DFF05F-AB75-42B1-8112-7B5E00A86A18@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F8DFF05F-AB75-42B1-8112-7B5E00A86A18@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/LEy2XT8f1-TZLs_kGME0hL3jCLY>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:40:01 -0000

Gyan,

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:10:25AM -0400, Gyan Mishra wrote:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-drlb-11
> 
> 
> So the BFD PIM Draft would register the PIM protocol and in asynchronous mode with echo disabled we can achieve sub millisecond detection time and convergence during failover.
> 
> So I do think we need a PIM BFD Draft. 
> 
> Since this falls between multiple WG but since BFD related this would be under the BFD WG.

Generally, when we're talking about whether a draft that utilizes BFD
belongs in BFD or not, the deciding criteria is usually whether there's
changes to the BFD protocol itself.

I believe in these cases we'd be making use of existing p2mp BFD procedures
rather than extending them.  In that case, we'd normally suggest the work
live in the related protocol Working Group.

Part of BFD's charter is to help review uses of BFD in such protocols, so
even if the work was happening in the related multicast working groups, the
chairs of those groups are welcome to request simultaneous review in BFD
during last call.

-- Jeff