Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 16 January 2018 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 825631242F5 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:20:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 DzSEAdK1trGy for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22d.google.com (mail-lf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 812A1120227 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id y71so18792272lfd.12 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:20:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+XZHXmYNIQZlv8Ds0DkDRFCguUr+159MdtD+IaIW2BQ=; b=m3fkMUacKDZXnHdabnsMth8YnPq5OY3cmyFheK63QwW+C0AUrs7wdUlBC0YULGJE42 cbP45gFUXtm5c9O8lregz7qYCCGzb4eg7JYKi9qGSxcyQ1AzeGvZoSEtV09zY5cu+O3Q fYTo113yvJI3CG5s4zFUL/2cDpdRq0t933AznVwwffuKUmIQGqfgNrZCtwmq4SyIgBhR +PQF956tg9c2F862CfDgWKbxBlXKT9kLvuNdcmscStV5seLK3tnTqOvh8E376to4mQw2 gsFfy9Zp0aUANpoCAmlmc0J/06y4DqqeZSIPuRrXysDlu7h71wFbHZasVkps9+zI8tiz vsuw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+XZHXmYNIQZlv8Ds0DkDRFCguUr+159MdtD+IaIW2BQ=; b=W1vdMrpDOIPaM7jIY+7ucJNvkWSmNT/3VB8Tsp+VJcoU69y/HK6i/lvloiACJLrzTV DtL5bDFw3ICb14vsw/kalmZZb0nA897tBb1vTInANJbYdNklla7tY3F1GoINZ05Gxszm OvdLT+HNUKhpzhsjUbweIZkpv3EwxJNrrzgGHHc3HY7sEzQYg/QNhdJgU9nb4c2nTZIN QULnaoW43n7DitBZ9T//0nvZPCeNfsVd33PLudemh7SEliBkgf7FWoBA+9nNghqzN4qy KimzHZibISfSnejTmzibQ8KDI6DxbPylEeHc1Zf/tpgTgxNeoOYA29zTQjMFBFBj62gz R4zA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdCGPSXtEkQKiG1IlGo1EYzi2YCYdpaS3BJYP2Y4SBqtjFQkpi2 CNZiJusJ8QE6M30ahJMLvKPKY5m7JrDr677LFocsMA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosihwUml4swfqEO/Xxe/vfz70rk0vSvaaW+vIYUPbVNpQeNIK4pyyufDfnud8GgnwY3eS4Fm8sUqaJop/k0jKc=
X-Received: by 10.25.19.220 with SMTP id 89mr11386346lft.57.1516130399537; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:19:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.32.136 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:19:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5F69E3D1-19E1-45F7-926D-61449E1F09B2@cisco.com>
References: <20171213172443.GC8708@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmX6PHczvwEzc4UNqBioK8qv=wTfyeHg9j04EJNe1Uv0wA@mail.gmail.com> <746F74E2-7DFC-41A7-879F-4054CF95475C@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWqGPTkBek+a0N+BaFr9QZ+xEKvWT5oRxPBuhFsQcizcw@mail.gmail.com> <38B53F72-66B9-4E8F-8BCE-C28A2C283D38@cisco.com> <20171219160537.GH8708@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmWQTH9N9cCOHJ_9BgvfDGLGFgrsKrMj8mmqGm-V=5KLSw@mail.gmail.com> <20171220171322.GE8708@pfrc.org> <7C073038-8E7D-4735-82A4-97592AA9B34B@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmXanVpKKmyXP9+yuh4z2H4qAeN4jH2xEMx7ddiSHViV3g@mail.gmail.com> <DB3B0F10-4BD8-4096-8875-2E476064E77A@cisco.com> <491F0297-F2AB-4377-A013-1050FDBBB709@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmVXO0o09k-DYY69E2sKdKiU5YBf-h=PnBgerx+HF=ryfg@mail.gmail.com> <44B4B608-7A2B-4E95-A5F7-116896C57028@cisco.com> <0714A770-BF3F-4EF8-A302-A478439A5B13@cisco.com> <5F69E3D1-19E1-45F7-926D-61449E1F09B2@cisco.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:19:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWMwom+2=jWHfvSr9AG=WPCnhYJ6uC9HVonVFh9McaysQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f16e0e5ce720562e99d70"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/M8N3mTgaqSGf_VWolS283imMRYc>
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: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:20:04 -0000

Hi Reshad,
I think this is very good idea. Then in section 4.13.3 Transmitting BFD
Packets of BFD for Multipoint Networks should be edited. Perhaps the
following be acceptable:
OLD TEXT

   A system MUST NOT transmit any BFD Control packets if bfd.SilentTail
   is 1.

NEW TEXT

   A system MUST NOT transmit any BFD Control packets if bfd.SessionType is

   MultipointTail.

Will look into related changes in active tails if others agree with
the proposal in general.


Regards,

Greg



On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com
> wrote:

> Regarding bfd.SilentTail, I am wondering if instead it should be removed
> from MP draft  (always 1 in there) and kept as new state variable in
> active-tail?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 9:32 AM
> *To: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>;, Greg Mirsky <
> gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
> *Cc: *Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"; <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
>
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
>
>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> The changes for bfd.SessionType (in both drafts) look good.
>
>
>
> bfd.SilentTail is fine in multipoint but in active-tail it is in the New
> State Variables section.  It should be in 3.3.2 instead and there should be
> a reference to the multipoint draft.
>
>
>
> Also, I am in the process of doing the shepherd write-up. So you don’t
> have to push these changes immediately, you can wait for the review, up to
> you.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>;
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 1:47 AM
> *To: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
> *Cc: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;, Jeffrey Haas <
> jhaas@pfrc.org>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"; <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
>
>
>
> Looks good to me, Greg. Thanks.
>
> Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
>
> Excuze typofraphicak errows
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 15:32, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> Hi Reshad and Carlos,
>
> thank you for your suggestions. Please check the diffs with proposed
> changes to BFD Multipoint and BFD Multipoint with active tails drafts
> (attached).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
> cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
> Reshad, Greg,
>
>
>
> Indeed, it seems the content of the section is updated, but the title is
> misleading. The same applies to the active-tail doc:
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-
> active-tail-06#section-3.3.1
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12#section-4.4.1
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> —
> Carlos Pignataro, carlos@cisco.com
>
> *“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself
> sound more photosynthesis."*
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>;
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Section 4.4.1 still says “New state variables” for bfd.SessionType and the
> text still starts with “A number of state variables and their values are
> added…”, so I misinterpreted that as bfd.SessionType is being added as new
> state variable.
>
>
>
> Please consider splitting this section in 2 parts for clarification e.g.
> 4.4.1 for New State Variables (bfd.SilentTail) and 4.4.2 for New State
> Variable Values (bfd.SessionType).
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12#section-4.4.1
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
> *Date: *Monday, January 15, 2018 at 6:17 PM
> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;
> *Cc: *Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>;, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <
> cpignata@cisco.com>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"; <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
>
>
>
> Hi Reshad,
>
> I thought I've addressed them as per Carlos suggestion. Have I missed
> anything?
>
>
>
> Regards, Greg
>
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2018 3:00 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;
> wrote:
>
> The changes for bfd.SessionType (it’s not a new state variable but uses
> what’s defined in RFC7880) weren’t made in the latest revision.
>
> Greg, do you plan on addressing this soon? Or there’s no consensus on this
> topic yet?
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> On 2017-12-20, 12:09 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" <
> rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jhaas@pfrc.org>; wrote:
>
>     Greg,
>
>     On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:17:02PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>     > Hi Carlos and Jeff,
>     > thank you for responding so expediently. I think we've reached the
> rough
>     > consensus. Attached are the diffs for both BFD documents and the
> updated
>     > copies. Please let me know if the changes being made have addressed
> all the
>     > comments received during the WGLC. I'll then upload new versions.
>
>     I believe this covers all points I've seen on the mailing list to date.
>
>     Please push the updates.
>
>     We'll have further discussion about the need for a registry in
> conjunction
>     with the Yang module implications discussion.
>
>     -- Jeff
>
>     > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>;
> wrote:
>     [...]
>     > > At this point it is also worth noting that the session type has no
>     > > centralized location covering their enumerations.  This leads to
> two
>     > > interesting observations:
>     > > - We could have an IANA registry for such things.  However, I'm
> not sure
>     > >   this is really need.  But this also means:
>     > > - Here's another case why some pieces of the BFD yang module
> likely shoudl
>     > >   be IANA maintained.  In this case, the bfd-path-type identity as
> the
>     > >   relevant example.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-06.txt -
> draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-07.txt.html>
>
> <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12.txt - draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-13.
> txt.html>
>
>