Re: Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 04:42:40PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> thank you for the continued discussion and the most specific comments.
> Please find my answers in-line tagged GIM>>.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> >
> > 7/ Scope
> > [ALL RESOLVED]
> >
> > 8/ Incremental deployment
> > [UNRESOLVED] The text remains unchanged.
> > There seems to be a misunderstanding about this comment. Carlos Pignataro
> > has
> > explained on the list, but people seem to keep misunderstanding him too.
> > The
> > text in 5.4.1 simply needs to clarify that implementations that do not
> > support
> > the multipoint-BFD specification are not required to use the PointToPoint
> > value
> > of bfd.SessionType  (such non-multipoint implementations are
> > point-to-point but
> > they don't have to say they are).
> >
> GIM>>  I disagree. PointToPoint is the new value for the bfd.SessionType
> variable added in this specification with scope of bfd.SessionType being
> RFC 5880 and mpBFD. bfd.SessionType variable was added in RFC 7880 with
> scope of S-BFD only, excluding RFC 5880. If this specification updates RFC
> 7880 in regard to the scope of bfd.SessionType, then the statement in
> section 6.1 RFC 7880:
>    The bfd.SessionType variable MUST be initialized to the appropriate
>    type when an S-BFD session is created.
> is replaced by the one from section 5.4.1 of this specification:
>          This variable MUST be initialized to the appropriate type when
>          the session is created.


Would this necessitate adding an Updates: 7880 header?

-Benjamin

> 
> > ==New Nits==
> >
> > 1. Intro:
> > s/enables a tail monitor availability/
> >  /enables a tail to monitor availability/
> >
> GIM>> Thank you. Should it become, including suggestion by Eric:
> 
> .... allows a tail to monitor the availability ...