IETF Logo Mail Archive

Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim

"Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com> Fri, 14 November 2014 04:04 UTC

Return-Path: <nobo@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF131A00EB for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:04:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.095 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 UXaZNoS9vdkr for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:04:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 601DB1A00BD for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:04:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1276; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415937851; x=1417147451; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=LG7A5lmikUIKPph28bb9x96QGRW2KvOjWF6jeNQHO6k=; b=j07+Ai2+sySN2WCmhxkxOTcUEbiY9R4Rig1DfXixbV2+MT85CHkCmdkZ JLmJlUXRnMfSi3v+mnUXbdJ6mv7fxtuR01bag0VnrmCi0aVDYGPVuvOHC 9YwhZpaAgU+CDH3zBOMm9SFZnaEo1u5NvBEPtG0ScNAatLeF1uR6iHDB8 o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag8FAMN+ZVStJV2T/2dsb2JhbABbgmsjgTLUTwKBIhYBAQEBAXILhAQBBDpRASoUQiAGAQQbiDkBqnimDQEBAQEGAQEBAQEdkHGDZYEeBZAfgiiNOZE8hAqDfII1gQMBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,383,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="372094718"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2014 04:04:10 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sAE448Y2031616 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:04:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:04:08 -0600
From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>
To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim
Thread-Topic: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim
Thread-Index: Ac//wAdQ8oS8wTAIRaCZduflS+eKRA==
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:04:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F5279D0@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.122.85]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/RlKU2SBAP4hI3zY4Apac6E0F6Pg
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:04:11 -0000

[Speaking as an individual S-BFD contributor]

Hi BFD WG,

There were couple of questions I need your input on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim.


(1) Should the "extended" S-BFD use cases move to draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case?

My opinion is yes. Once the "extended" S-BFD use cases have been incorporated into draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case, then we should try to move draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case forward.

How does the WG feel about this?


(2) Should the alert discriminator proposal move to draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base?

My opinion is no . Instead we should position this as an optional feature of S-BFD (hence separate document than the base), especially considering we likely need to think through additional security concerns raised by this.

A question was raised by Greg on how does a node find out if the target supports the optional alert discriminator or not. We can define a mandatory diagnostic value that must be implemented when the alert discriminator is implemented. One can send an S-BFD control packet with the alert discriminator with this diagnostic value to check if the target supports the alert discriminator mechanism.

How does the WG feel about this?


Thanks!

-Nobo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email