Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carlos,
thank you very much for pointing this out. Sorry I've missed it. I agree
that it requires resolution but I think that the resolution is different
from what you've proposed in your original comment. The names of the new
variable in RFC 7880 and
draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tails are
identical but, I believe, semantics are different:

   - RFC 7880 uses bfd.SessionType to reflect S-BFD role the node performs
   in S-BFD session
   - draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-* are using bfd.SessionType to reflect
   topology of the BFD session, i.e. whether it is p2p or p2mp

S-BFD currently specified for p2p but I don't see a reason why S-BFD cannot
be applied to p2mp cases. So, for a BFD node that supports both RFC 7880
and draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint values of variables may be SBFDInitiator and
PointToPoint. And, at some time, there will be interest to define behavior
of the SBFDInitiator/MultipointHead and SBFDReflector/MultipointTail
combinations.

Thus I see this issue as name conflict that can be resolved by changing the
name in draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-* to something other than
bfd.SessionType. Perhaps we can change the name to bfd.SessionTopology.

Greatly appreciate comments, suggestions. Let's make holiday presents to
our AD!

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Greg,
>
> It seems the comments regarding bfd.SessionType are not addressed:
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg03475.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 15, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> attached please find diffs and the updated version of the
> draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail. All changes are editorial. Please
> review changes and share your comments.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Working Group,
>>
>> In an attempt to give our AD a holiday gift, we're at the point where we
>> may
>> now work to conclude WGLC on the BFD multipoint documents.  We did one
>> pass
>> of last call June-July of this year, and held off approval pending review
>> from ALU who has an implementation of the base spec.  ALU has since
>> responded that they're fine with the contents.
>>
>> To provide the working group one last opportunity to review the documents,
>> we're running a final last call and will send off the changes to our AD
>> afterward.
>>
>> The prior WGLC thread is here:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/yDOFOpd9BIIKtL
>> niDGdqPioSt_w/?qid=2d0831389d19508c66f9a387096250e6
>>
>> The documents are here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint/
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail/
>>
>> The intent is to conclude this WGLC at end of year.
>>
>> -- Jeff
>>
>>
> <draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-06.txt>
>
> <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-05.txt -
> draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-06.txt.html>
>
>