RE: A question on OAM section in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm

[[e-mail]]

Re-,

The IETF LC was actually closed since 2021-08-06. 

Even if the IETF LC is closed, the current BFD comments will be part of the comments we will be addressing in the next iteration. For your record, we have already recorded the name alignment fix, the missing default clause, holdtime explanation, and session type indication. 

If there are any other comments, please let us know. 

Thank you.  

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mercredi 1 septembre 2021 14:38
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>
> Cc : Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-
> [e-mail]; opsawg <[e-mail]>; rtg-bfd WG <rtg-
> [e-mail]>
> Objet : Re: A question on OAM section in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm
> 
> Med,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:48:43AM +0000,
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > Actually, except local-multiplier that we call detection-
> multiplier,
> > the same names are used in both drafts. We can fix that one.
> 
> Certainly a start.
> 
> > Please note that we are not using the interval-config-type choice
> > given that the single case can be covered by setting
> > desired-min-tx-interval and required-min-rx-interval to the same
> value.
> 
> This is true.  It's also true that that style entered the BFD YANG
> model because a unified-only mechanism is what some vendors have
> implemented.  If their implementations don't cover the split mode
> you're requiring them to create a deviation.
> 
> > It is then straightforward to
> > map it the device module depending whether single-minimum-interval
> > feature is supported or not. We don't want to complicate the
> network
> > view of the service with such device-level features.
> 
> There is always a tension between service models and the needs of
> the underlying device model.
> 
> That said, you're losing the benefits of work already done.  As an
> example, you're missing the default detection multiplier because
> you're doing the work yourself rather than leveraging other work.
> This means you're requiring the model users to always provision a
> paramter that is usually left as a default.
> 
> Clearly the BFD Working Group can't force you to use our work in
> your model, especially if there are features that aren't a clean
> fit.  That said, when it comes IETF review time, the choice to go-
> it-alone will be noted so that the YANG doctors can do an
> appropriately thorough audit.
> 
> The BFD Working Group is also happy to help with review once it's
> time.
> 
> -- Jeff

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.