Re: Small LC Comment on bfd-base-07
David Ward <dward@cisco.com> Thu, 14 February 2008 18:32 UTC
Return-Path: <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C553A70C1; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:32:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_39=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cu2bYUPfLcs9; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93853A68CC; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:32:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C502A3A68CC for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:32:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0x1b2q0sRAWX for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1823A6871 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2008 13:33:55 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1EIXtIc032192; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:33:55 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1EIXrWD004329; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:33:53 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.52]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:33:52 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([171.68.225.134]) by xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:33:52 -0500
In-Reply-To: <3AF13E92-9A08-4A8F-BB7A-3C69492C9D05@juniper.net>
References: <47B366E9.2090300@cisco.com> <3AF13E92-9A08-4A8F-BB7A-3C69492C9D05@juniper.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <849C71E2-71A6-455E-8F4C-1DA4FBC4FFF2@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Small LC Comment on bfd-base-07
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:33:51 -0600
To: Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2008 18:33:52.0671 (UTC) FILETIME=[26040AF0:01C86F38]
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=dward@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Cc: BFD WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Vague language is also good if we need to add new/more diags and not be "trapped." -DWard On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Dave Katz wrote: > Good catch. The Diag field has morphed over the long lifetime of > BFD, and the language about Down/AdminDown has obviously been > overtaken by events. We'll have to wordsmith some vague language > that points out that the Diag field says something about the last > event of interest other than the session coming up. > > --Dave > > On Feb 13, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Carlos Pignataro wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> A quick comment on a possible small inconsistency that was brought >> up in pwe3: In concatenated paths/iw, the Diag can have values of >> 6/8 without the Session State being (Admin)Down: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-base-07#section-6.8.17 >> >> Two diagnostic codes are defined for this purpose: Concatenated >> Path >> Down and Reverse Concatenated Path Down. >> ... >> A system MAY signal one of these failure states by simply setting >> bfd.LocalDiag to the appropriate diagnostic code. Note that the >> BFD >> session is not taken down. If Demand mode is not active on the >> remote system, no other action is necessary, as the diagnostic code >> will be carried via the periodic transmission of BFD Control >> packets. >> >> But the definition of Diag (and bfd.LocalDiag) says (or implies) >> that there needs to be a state change to Down or AdminDown: >> >> Diagnostic (Diag) >> >> A diagnostic code specifying the local system's reason for the >> last session state change to states Down or AdminDown. >> >> bfd.LocalDiag >> >> The diagnostic code specifying the reason for the most >> recent >> local session state change to states Down or AdminDown. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> --Carlos Pignataro. >> Escalation RTP - cisco Systems >> >> >
- Re: Small LC Comment on bfd-base-07 Dave Katz
- Re: Small LC Comment on bfd-base-07 David Ward
- Re: Small LC Comment on bfd-base-07 Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Small LC Comment on bfd-base-07 Jeffrey Haas