Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 05 July 2017 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 01103131D6B for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 a6wF5qF0311q for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA73131D48 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DA2A21E34A; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 12:25:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 12:25:05 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)
Message-ID: <20170705162505.GR2289@pfrc.org>
References: <20170619193929.GE22146@pfrc.org> <0B1CE01B-4FA3-4536-AF41-5DDC6F510C0D@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <0B1CE01B-4FA3-4536-AF41-5DDC6F510C0D@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/SNQq9y-QZad10cxZe5MNGXPm7iY>
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: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 16:15:53 -0000

Carlos,

Thanks for your detailed feedback.  Most of this feedback seems to be of the
nature of minor edits.  Is it your opinion this document is ready to advance
after these issues are addressed?

-- Jeff

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 02:56:22PM +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> Just one comment on these two documents, in regards to the state variables:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10#section-4.4.1
> 
> 4.4.1.  New State Variables
> 
>    A number of state variables are added to the base specification in
>    support of Multipoint BFD.
> 
>       bfd.SessionType
> 
>          The type of this session.  Allowable values are:
> 
> CMP: However, this state (bfd.SessionType) variable is already defined in SBFD RFC 7880:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7880#section-6.1
> 
> 6.1.  New State Variables
> 
>    A new state variable is added to the base specification in support
>    of S-BFD.
> 
>    o  bfd.SessionType: This is a new state variable that describes
>       the type of a particular session.
> 
> 
> CMP: So, for draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint, I suggest a pointer to RFC 7880 where bfd.SessionType is defined in the addition of new values to the existing variable.
> 
> CMP: Similarly:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-04#section-3.3.1
> 
>       bfd.SessionType
> 
>          The type of this session as defined in
>          [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint].  A new value introduced is:
> 
> CMP: The pointer above should be to RFC 7880 also, and:
> 
>       bfd.SilentTail
> 
> CMP: But this is defined in draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10#section-4.4.1
> 
>       bfd.SilentTail
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> — Carlos.
> 
> 
> On Jun 19, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> wrote:
> 
> Working Group,
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-04
> 
> 
> The BFD Multipoint documents have been stable for some time.  Prior
> discussion at meetings has suggested we have an implementation for the main
> protocol component.  Also per prior discussions, we split the active-tail
> component of the original multipoint document to permit implementors to not
> have to worry about implementing active-tail procedures if they weren't
> interested in that feature.
> 
> We are starting an extended last call on these documents.  The WGLC will
> conclude on July 14.  This provides ample time for list discussion.  If
> necessary, the IETF-99 meeting may provide for opportunities to close any
> contentious technical points.  (BFD is not currently scheduled to meet.)
> 
> One item I would like to kick off is the document status of the active-tail
> mechanism.  At this time, no one has implemented it that I am aware of.
> Discussion with our AD suggests that publishing the document with
> Experimental status may be reasonable to preserve the work that went into
> the proposal.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
>