Re: Several questions about the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 06 April 2023 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 7F55FC15C293; Thu, 6 Apr 2023 08:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x20V0yF-fSe4; Thu, 6 Apr 2023 08:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb35.google.com (mail-yb1-xb35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b35]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3818C16B5A9; Thu, 6 Apr 2023 08:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb35.google.com with SMTP id y69so3185139ybe.2; Thu, 06 Apr 2023 08:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680795116; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HkrI/gj8XFxLUlOeBjA/NaGB/zzi68joTEuZAj2wM44=; b=oKIDNgpqAEJE2gpcrYkOmjt9umNYM+3U/nYFyZKS2sPOY/vKFDViSxH2UwGF+MwFLk X7XNyTie2jh2G0402vCOumqMYNDR1R16Kkc9RqyBvZQA6M+KKx+4Z8X9WZnoa7vVSbH5 e2BST/mpTdGWfOtjD5JTfwk1XO7WBwsLKFXlL6/wJud2UinOlm6KpeZwjnIpxRsyhhp6 1DJYZ8Ro19r4c9aQsy2qkjT/tqnwm/R7bSjvYGGDEAkLUWd9ot+TkCWINqHNYKWWT5wz bZuTGpFzNDKiSbc6wppXYelouJrxgzPnGzm6YbETr/8MDzzMdXduvnk2Qnn71H7RJRZI DaSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680795116; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=HkrI/gj8XFxLUlOeBjA/NaGB/zzi68joTEuZAj2wM44=; b=gFJL4Gl0rJnCIMaRKvYlcC4LN/BNVv5CLg1MZb8zY/PQggCX6NkVGTSn4DRz83OsyV BQHtvsxYwlBLswNwHCgY6eJJn/YligaVdv6nWcMkfqVJsWPabqu9bqxlQ1VNcKCNMcQO jEydV9K0n2/QAt+QV3QRTq2x1nguLPLEumusaRo8sWMl7Qtp4zcqn9N0vTOq3EcBSBM4 4Fqy/cyLT+YQzeZ46I6mQudxKZtP/Kjw7hyjrr2En80GS5cHh1IQaIv/unhn/t2kqUXL XdZHzsKEotXdljXloxTVWmuFbH39Y7Lrqz4O3ALKRehq4uOO0IRW6wX/tW4pkUv8c6af 1blg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dz1WJ05qv+ndCIZgYW0oHtK7Fh/yPPVCsW5zuM3TyIjhrrk/Wk tteg4nVwhIYTc0in+2mAAz2vW4XJ33a0CEG7lAE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YljgZCO42+OTT9iIj8g9/9zj/ax8fePA+P0hiIy2JauEUI2TLD+t6M5zhrVxPapnrPQpJqvG/6TIkawAEwSSo=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:ccc4:0:b0:b8a:5fd7:5180 with SMTP id l187-20020a25ccc4000000b00b8a5fd75180mr2339867ybf.2.1680795116326; Thu, 06 Apr 2023 08:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmUmPVB5dHfbYHHS1=_sMGd9yXcxPs7ByuqC__iPWqpnTg@mail.gmail.com> <202111171700094780970@zte.com.cn> <20211118142945.GB19832@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmVxgh5t1+hTmCB=g8PZOuXCGNT_17cteWVqd-kvm=+thw@mail.gmail.com> <B7F2F888-5F2D-4732-A335-BFF74FD35362@pfrc.org> <MN2PR15MB2990A04EF81CA87DB995ECCE8F9B9@MN2PR15MB2990.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <20211118173802.GA30567@pfrc.org> <CAHqjiDjc2fLfFz53POSH1ikgryF_2cXG2sfWM6fKYY=fz5NL2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmWK9HcjXJ-ce44poXT6RmfEHFfht5=V-vUX=_2h8tR05w@mail.gmail.com> <0C9967AE-D5F5-4111-9426-053B2BF91F80@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <0C9967AE-D5F5-4111-9426-053B2BF91F80@pfrc.org>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2023 08:31:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmU-7pwzQTmM4-F7X3iKSQU_r65p38TK4G5xEw8S2B9T1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Several questions about the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: David Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@gmail.com>, David Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com>, Xiao Min <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>, "draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo@ietf.org>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d9530105f8ac9b29"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/_2ZprGU-lScaSfsZvEJCbEp56i8>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 06 Apr 2023 15:32:01 -0000

Thank you, Jeff, for pointing me in the right direction.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:03 AM Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> You may find the official liaison response here in the archives:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/vw31qO1UpD7epoZKXT8_obmY64A/
>
> The contents of that response are:
>
> From: Dave Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@gmail.com> <&lt;david.sinicrope@gmail.com&gt;>
> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>,Reshad <&lt;jhaas@pfrc.org&gt;,Reshad> Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com> <&lt;reshad@yahoo.com&gt;>
> Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>,John <&lt;aretana.ietf@gmail.com&gt;,John> Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>,Martin <&lt;jgs@juniper.net&gt;,Martin> Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>,Dave <&lt;martin.vigoureux@nokia.com&gt;,Dave> Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@gmail.com>,Jeffrey <&lt;david.sinicrope@gmail.com&gt;,Jeffrey> Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>,Reshad <&lt;jhaas@pfrc.org&gt;,Reshad> Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>,Bidirectional <&lt;reshad@yahoo.com&gt;,Bidirectional> Forwarding Detection Discussion List <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> <&lt;rtg-bfd@ietf.org&gt;>
> Response Contacts:
> Technical Contacts:
> Purpose: For information
>
> Body: The BBF thanks the IETF BFD WG for informing us of important work on the BFD Echo.
>
> We wanted to clarify the "overlapping use case with TR-146". TR-146 leverages BFD Echo as a connectivity check mechanism. It does so in a manner where the peer does not need a full BFD implementation to echo the packet received. In our opinion, no future standardization is required to support TR-146. There is no current interest in revising TR-146 to leverage the enhancement of the BFD protocol.
> We noted in the BBF community that those interested in participating should do so in the IETF BFD WG.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Lincoln Lavoie,
> Broadband Forum Technical Committee Chair
>
>
>
> On Apr 5, 2023, at 7:36 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Dave, Jeff, et al.,
> I was looking for the BFD WG liaison to BBF and its response. I appreciate
> it if you help me to find out what was the BBF response, as the
> draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo is in the WG LC.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:05 AM David Sinicrope <
> david.sinicrope@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeff, (Sorry for bouncing around email addresses on you… IT challenges
>> this week)
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying the assertion concerning BBF interest.  Still,
>> given the statement in the adoption call and the clear references to TR-146
>> in the draft, it would be a good idea to liaise to BBF, even if brief, and
>> let them know of the draft and its relation to TR-146.  It certainly
>> couldn’t hurt to have open communication with them on the subject.
>>
>> Regarding your check with the IESG on the liaison - please proceed as you
>> deem appropriate.  I will say, (and apologies if I’m stating well known
>> details) that typically liaisons don’t need IESG approval.  They are
>> normally crafted/drafted by the WG Chairs, and have some level of review
>> and approval by the WG(s) in question or impacted.
>>
>> I hope this helps find the most expeditious and effective way to proceed.
>> Thanks,
>> Dave
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:38 Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:18:38PM +0000, David Sinicrope wrote:
>>> > Sorry, I don't recall our discussion, but then it would have been as
>>> long ago as Singapore in Nov 2019 or before.
>>> > (Is it possible you spoke with Dave Allan?)
>>>
>>> That's possible!  As I noted in the thread, my notes from that lunch are
>>> missing.  (I have strong words for Microsoft about their support for Mac
>>> mail, but that's a different story.)  Whomever I had a conversation with
>>> it
>>> was in a subterranean warren of lunch venues.  Perhaps that will jar
>>> someone's memory of the venue.
>>>
>>> If you have contact info for Dave Allen I can certainly followup with
>>> him.
>>>
>>> > I can say as the BBF Liaison Manager there have been many past claims
>>> of
>>> > BBF interest in IETF work without substantiation.  As a result, it has
>>> > been key to ensure that any statement of BBF interest in IETF work,
>>> > especially if made to encourage action in the IETF, be formally
>>> supported
>>> > via a liaison.    Searching the Liaison Statements in
>>> > Datatracker<https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/>, I don't see a
>>> liaison
>>> > from either the BBF or IETF related to this work.
>>>
>>> Please note that I don't believe we're asserting that BBF is interested
>>> in
>>> IETF in doing this work for BBF.  And perhaps the easiest answer we'll
>>> converge to is "remove all mention of BBF".
>>>
>>> That said, throughout the discussion that lead to this draft, it was
>>> pointed
>>> out to the original authors that they were largely covering the TR-146
>>> use
>>> case.  Minimally, making sure we have a BBF statement regarding the IETF
>>> work may make sense.
>>>
>>> > Also, to the best of my knowledge, the issues that this draft addresses
>>> > have not been raised in BBF. E.g., a proposal for revision to TR-146 or
>>> > related documents.
>>>
>>> I am not a participant in BBF and have no knowledge of any such
>>> communications one way or the other.  Informally, the discussions I have
>>> been involved in both with the BFD draft in question and in prior
>>> contexts
>>> at my employer have mostly been that the BBF procedures are somewhat
>>> inspecific and cleaner documented procedures for the use case are
>>> desired.
>>>
>>> > Given the stated overlap and application of the draft to TR-146 (in
>>> the adoption call),
>>> [...]
>>> > I would suggest that a liaison be crafted and sent to the BBF formally
>>> > notifying them of this work and inquiring as to the interest in the
>>> > content of the draft.  Fortunately, the next BBF meeting where such a
>>> > liaison would be addressed and responded to is 29 Nov - 3 Dec 2021.
>>> The
>>> > sooner the liaison is sent, the more likely a timely response coming
>>> out
>>> > of this upcoming meeting.
>>>
>>> I think we could make such a deadline.  I'll start discussion with our
>>> AD to
>>> see what the IESG will want for the liaison statement.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I'll see if I can contact Dave Allen to try to get
>>> clarification
>>> of what we discussed over lunch - if it was him.
>>>
>>> -- Jeff
>>>
>> --
>> David Sinicrope
>> david.sinicrope@gmail.com
>>
>
>