Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Mon, 15 January 2018 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.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 C48DB12ECC3 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:01:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 V7Xv9D9YNLc9 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:01:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5A3312ECC0 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:00:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2346; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1516057254; x=1517266854; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=WAvYyTzihaM1GQUOTcusy1SOhe1bVVO/IPUThxLnT8g=; b=VCb3Hw1rDl+XVdWjvCyWch6lQPr+GKtizis5O/Zh404b7Exqj1LN1Xpu +jb5JC0m5dFALb3jZQFkC5UbKoTCR9y/Bi6hLcAgQ8CTYEq3hUN0ZZIvn 8HTJYTcL6e7aP+mY1ENTz/WFC+9vDGVgkAEzL7++5luCDnrksD33Nb4Dz o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DYAADJMV1a/49dJa1TCRkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEHAQEBAQGDQYFaJweEDIokjl+BWyeXLIIWCoU7AhqENz8YAQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BayiFIwEBAQECASMROgsQAgEIDgoCAiYCAgIwFRACBAENBYorCKgjgieJSwEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2BD4VCgVeBaSkMgnmDLwSBRSoXgwAxghQgAQS?= =?us-ascii?q?ZcolyApVJghmGHYtalngCERkBgTsBHzmBUG8VPSoBgX+EV3iMOAGBFgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,365,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="56450760"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jan 2018 23:00:54 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (xch-aln-019.cisco.com [173.36.7.29]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0FN0rU0022749 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 23:00:53 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (173.36.7.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:00:53 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:00:53 -0600
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
Thread-Topic: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
Thread-Index: AQHTdDbMQKkp4UZhy0e3Kn8Lrj3T1qNFVBAAgABtnICAASUEgIADdUKAgADmoICAAGfFAIABPX0AgCk9u4A=
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 23:00:53 +0000
Message-ID: <7C073038-8E7D-4735-82A4-97592AA9B34B@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>
In-Reply-To: <20171220171322.GE8708@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <548A156456AC3B4FBC7A0B010DA6D2AE@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/RUS6Lmd6KYONU26f9BUONuy4kIg>
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: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 23:01:04 -0000

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.