Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 16 January 2018 06:32 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 B0E48124D68 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:32:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.298 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_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01] 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 PngBn4pOI9TZ for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:32:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (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 891CE12422F for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id w23so15960495lfd.11 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:32:02 -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=/9qollOZlcJ/SnCGm/vIk0q0jz/QD4/m4FTRDi6jgoE=; b=b4vow1ds7TDXhaIetRKnzzj+42I1J98j4AHv6fACoNSf1g/Vqt7GuaWc1Ldv4yjJv5 0oqX6ZmWzV8H7fSNYIcRAHwqSKJ9StuTB4yJbCWpt7dYGNHEcnrdO7xvWPYAV1RtJs8f 7W0F1ZX0ZZ5YYr+u6RKBPwQ6VDuNzpsjJaLhWz/Mv9wNvaVYDt10G06Yd3PDZIohq2qU 5IkGSIlXB8tfajXoUV4e1la6k/VGI6YJG3UnSI6YBjER8GMqZX1zPyJvLA6uBg+vHTXu Ny2kNfTdyNoFYw4mmG7JzMNR7z8efJjtpO0EoMe8g7WbqltQvyMzBWG1kxIoCEewnrC8 Avvw==
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=/9qollOZlcJ/SnCGm/vIk0q0jz/QD4/m4FTRDi6jgoE=; b=CC9LQ9Kn2Yh/GlEhLuyWAp8gcWZ8TiCQOfMznirj4iy7A76OHDe9muU0PZBkg6zC6R qJaF5uIAxZdqvzfCjOJl1fnkXOn4anS0WD3YX2J18bJGqlgNWilRRu07BOGpT6joOrmL Umj9Cloivh/z5H16Sda8/Mm5hmyEj/+eSMDymABEADKGZIEMR8Ei9mTijCj2yE3XtLWE IeGWCOnNz7v7jwkLGoE/OLLyv0R2W2haErCQp64Thk4yVeEIBLCcT4D+QVV+2nSc8egF t2wH8c2tStN+67VKS59c6xN+k2vkbjqGe0Kuttj7pfQdYCa3cJWqRS/IVIgYrUBGERPV 76yQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdQ40hScnrs1kWuf2tUj7xDa+9fvYaFfwJYiaNhPxhHqZAhPfAh i1NvXxtZ7lOIg++kq9LacGbpQr6Z1BB5TclqUfY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosVJUrDp1TeAqZzREIR3rXjRlVWV1iNAcUgz7bLYTdEd2BuoUGS20Z07+5FWvgokwlFHUehRktvaksgKl8/FRg=
X-Received: by 10.25.40.130 with SMTP id o124mr7111582lfo.3.1516084320640; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:32:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.32.136 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:31:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <491F0297-F2AB-4377-A013-1050FDBBB709@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>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:31:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVXO0o09k-DYY69E2sKdKiU5YBf-h=PnBgerx+HF=ryfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="001a114082d261d0ca0562dee314"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/NqP_DHpxDgy335U6UT87XXs_zqY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:26:08 -0800
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 06:32:08 -0000

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.
>
>
>
>