RE: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim

["Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sam, Marc, Mallik,

Many thanks for healthy discussions.

To summarize:
- I will spawn off a separate thread for the alert discriminator soon.
- I [as individual contributor] believe draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case document is now ready to progress. Authors have the ball to poke the chairs :)

Thanks!

-Nobo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Binderberger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 1:38 AM
> To: Sam Aldrin
> Cc: Nobo Akiya (nobo); MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon); [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim
> 
> Hello Sam,
> 
> > [resending as mailer complained, mail is too long; removed earlier
> > content as well)
> 
> complained but still delivered the long email too :-)
> 
> 
> > Keeping the solution aside, what makes it special that the use case
> > cannot be documented in 'use case' ID?
> 
> I would say it's the other way around: what makes S-BFD base and use-case
> so special that we separated them?
> 
> And sure, there is a good answer: size and focus. Especially keeping focus on
> both topics - protocol and use cases - is probably easier with two documents.
> But for something the size of the alert-discriminator the size is not a
> problem and for being focused it's then in favour of one single document
> (IMHO).
> 
> Splitting a small document makes it just fuzzy (my very personal opinion ;-)
> 
> 
> > Secondly, the alert-discriminator ID specifies the 'trace' option (sec 2.2).
> > I am not sure if it is indeed needed as BFD was not used so far like this.
> > Just a simple extension or not is different matter. Whether we should
> > be doing it with BFD (not just S-BFD) is more important and needs to
> > be discussed.
> 
> Interesting point.
> 
> 
> Regards, Marc