Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7880 (5211)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Tue, 19 December 2017 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.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 46B1D124205 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:28:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.529 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5emG5S0WHYPQ for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:28:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48D441241FC for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:28:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15630; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1513650494; x=1514860094; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=wVxNminvILCBYI4e82nvFRcPtUPB9cpl1O9AVJEq4Fs=; b=JapVmDmFkPs9iCbcJj1gdvNSW5tj/MUXJWSWgmjSsQbkf+NzS8TmQy6D SyHaw7k5McB3uzz5gA8ght2xgGy2ACF+L0kYd33NtcPoVmN5aieHd0SEq nS8jFY7wfXyIatinbiKuqYTv9Y+/iYnlYPHaYCz0lH6cYNQU34E6HT/X+ 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CxAAAkeDha/4ENJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYM+ZnQnB4N/iiGPCoFagSSIA4hQhVCCFQolhRYCGoRtPxgBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQFrKIUkBiNWEAIBCD8DAgICHxEUEQIEDgWJRkwDFRCrXIInhzwNgyYBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdg26CDoFWgWgBKQyCQTaBSYEhRAGFAzGCMgW?= =?us-ascii?q?KThiJJ45yPQKHfYgvhH6CFoYTi0qNGz6FcYMBAhEZAYE6AR85gU9vFRhOAYF+C?= =?us-ascii?q?YJWgXYBeAEBiHqBFQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.45,424,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="45879356"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Dec 2017 02:28:13 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (xch-rtp-004.cisco.com [64.101.220.144]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBJ2SDvB030440 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 02:28:13 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:28:12 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:28:12 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
CC: "David Ward (wardd)" <wardd@cisco.com>, Nobo Akiya <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>, "manav@ionosnetworks.com" <manav@ionosnetworks.com>, Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>, "Alia Atlas" <akatlas@gmail.com>, Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7880 (5211)
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7880 (5211)
Thread-Index: AQHTdqxug6tWe79ZEUuB3ZH478d1gqNKSIEA
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 02:28:12 +0000
Message-ID: <296B021A-8C19-4915-A292-9D348B6BA9B9@cisco.com>
References: <20171216202755.55553B80CC9@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20171216202755.55553B80CC9@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.116.133]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_296B021A8C194915A2929D348B6BA9B9ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/d1cYv8gHW_yEnqtQDT0LUorxuTE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 06:34:30 -0800
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 02:28:16 -0000

As a co-author of RFC 7880, I disagree with the report below, and recommend Rejecting this Erratum.

S-BFD uses the BFD state variables, and “bfd.SessionType” is applicable with finer granularity than “Not S-BFD”.

Some details at. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/HxHT6Nxhpxot4baDag7cW6gm_ZQ

Further:

The proposed value of “SBFDNone” is covered at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-11#section-4.4.1 with the values of either “PointToPoint” (classing, p2p, BFD), “MultipointHead”, and “MultipointTail” (plus “MultipointClient”)

Including a new state variable and new values for the bfd.SessionType adds unnecessary complexity.

—
Carlos Pignataro, carlos@cisco.com<mailto:carlos@cisco.com>

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."

On Dec 16, 2017, at 3:27 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>> wrote:

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7880,
"Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5211

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>

Section: 6.1

Original Text
-------------
  o  bfd.SessionType: This is a new state variable that describes
     the type of a particular session.  Allowable values for S-BFD
     sessions are:

     *  SBFDInitiator - an S-BFD session on a network node that
        performs a continuity test to a target entity by sending S-BFD
        packets.

     *  SBFDReflector - an S-BFD session on a network node that listens
        for incoming S-BFD Control packets to local entities and
        generates response S-BFD Control packets.

  The bfd.SessionType variable MUST be initialized to the appropriate
  type when an S-BFD session is created.


Corrected Text
--------------
  o  bfd.SessionType: This is a new state variable that describes
     the type of a particular session.  Allowable values for S-BFD
     sessions are:

     *  SBFDNone - indicates that the BFD session is not of S-BFD type.

     *  SBFDInitiator - an S-BFD session on a network node that
        performs a continuity test to a target entity by sending S-BFD
        packets.

     *  SBFDReflector - an S-BFD session on a network node that listens
        for incoming S-BFD Control packets to local entities and
        generates response S-BFD Control packets.

  The bfd.SessionType variable MUST be set to SBFDNone when a BFD
  session other than S-BFD. The bfd.SessionType variable MUST be
  initialized to the appropriate type when an S-BFD session is created.


Notes
-----
The original text leaves value of the new variable bfd.SessionType unspecified if the type of BFD session is other than S-BFD.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC7880 (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)
Publication Date    : July 2016
Author(s)           : C. Pignataro, D. Ward, N. Akiya, M. Bhatia, S. Pallagatti
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG