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

Greg Mirsky <> Thu, 06 April 2023 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F55FC15C293; Thu, 6 Apr 2023 08:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.095
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x20V0yF-fSe4; Thu, 6 Apr 2023 08:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3818C16B5A9; Thu, 6 Apr 2023 08:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y69so3185139ybe.2; Thu, 06 Apr 2023 08:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2023 08:31:44 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Several questions about the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo
To: Jeffrey Haas <>
Cc: David Sinicrope <>, David Sinicrope <>, Xiao Min <>, "" <>, rtg-bfd WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d9530105f8ac9b29"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2023 15:32:01 -0000

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


On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:03 AM Jeffrey Haas <> wrote:

> Greg,
> You may find the official liaison response here in the archives:
> The contents of that response are:
> From: Dave Sinicrope <> <&lt;;>
> To: Jeffrey Haas <>,Reshad <&lt;;,Reshad> Rahman <> <&lt;;>
> Cc: Alvaro Retana <>,John <&lt;;,John> Scudder <>,Martin <&lt;;,Martin> Vigoureux <>,Dave <&lt;;,Dave> Sinicrope <>,Jeffrey <&lt;;,Jeffrey> Haas <>,Reshad <&lt;;,Reshad> Rahman <>,Bidirectional <&lt;;,Bidirectional> Forwarding Detection Discussion List <> <&lt;;>
> 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 <> 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 <
>> 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 <> 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<>, 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