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

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <> Tue, 27 June 2017 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B92E129B41 for <>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 07:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R2ZFaczZieEy for <>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 07:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9DD8129B1A for <>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 07:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=11864; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1498575384; x=1499784984; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=WHkmVs3EzvUcwZ6sdvDA7FblZ3MuRvjar7U9cGxQ49g=; b=Smp8pV9xjNNX3cHS4Yet+d3Qf0MJbYnu+Fhv/Xj/jzhec7MlJWTf1mp7 PgZtYuqKLLpGthOolxxrKqzW4PO79fbR+1GgN1mIXzemKCcqkuDzMi4Cc Y9iShAbKPpg/gf0KNhm9ry6yfVSTiFdb8zLIftL0QNyJmx7q/1ty9yNwT k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BbAQBocVJZ/5hdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgystY4EOB4NlihmRQ5B0hSuCES6FewIagmI/GAECAQEBAQEBAWs?= =?us-ascii?q?ohRkGI1YQAgEIDjEDAgICMBQRAgQOBYlMZBCwOoImi1gBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEYBYMng0yBYAErC4JugTyGQTCCEh8FlyGHTgKHNIw1khSVIwEfOIE?= =?us-ascii?q?KdBVJEgGFCoF2dgEBiA2BDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,401,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="444742279"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jun 2017 14:56:23 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5REuNYx030334 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:56:23 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:56:22 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:56:22 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>
To: Jeff Haas <>
CC: "" <>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)
Thread-Topic: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)
Thread-Index: AQHS6TKRH3+h+CPmGE2vggvMdQNmVaI5G70A
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:56:22 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0B1CE01B4FA34536AF415DDC6F510C0Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:56:27 -0000

Just one comment on these two documents, in regards to the state variables:

4.4.1.  New State Variables

   A number of state variables are added to the base specification in
   support of Multipoint BFD.


         The type of this session.  Allowable values are:

CMP: However, this state (bfd.SessionType) variable is already defined in SBFD RFC 7880:

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:


         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:


CMP: But this is defined in draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint



— Carlos.

On Jun 19, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Jeffrey Haas <<>> wrote:

Working Group,

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