I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bfd-mib-01.txt

Carlos Garcia Braschi <cgbraschi@gmail.com> Mon, 11 July 2005 09:46 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Drurs-0005SQ-DK; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:46:28 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Drurr-0005SF-BV for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:46:27 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA25750 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:46:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nproxy.gmail.com ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrvJn-0006Mr-W5 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:15:22 -0400
Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id o25so199933nfa for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=poDu6E4ZqfFIoV9xLDPEnoUmlizD1ZUh6tRYvNlh1GzxSqL9cpnf2g+A/pkxKzkLU2z/Eh3KdBMmu7xQ9VQaX3HzbhnmHEY5+LL/2i+i0pbAontZU1/m+lPlzU5ozmdlukRbPZ8VmboU7uHGFCUHqhi1RERlhO5PG6/qd7GrGNY=
Received: by with SMTP id 19mr135330nfc; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <9e31186f05071102464808a520@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:46:12 +0200
From: Carlos Garcia Braschi <cgbraschi@gmail.com>
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <42cea4f8.3c325c90.6f04.06b9SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <42cea4f8.3c325c90.6f04.06b9SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bfd-mib-01.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Carlos Garcia Braschi <cgbraschi@gmail.com>
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.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: <https://www1.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

> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:50:02 -0400
> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bfd-mib-01.txt
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Message-ID: <E1DquB0-00029R-Eq@newodin.ietf.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Working Group of the IETF.
>         Title           : Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Management Information Base
>         Author(s)       : T. Nadeau, Z. Ali
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-bfd-mib-01.txt
>         Pages           : 24
>         Date            : 2005-7-8

I have two comments on this draft, probably quite trivial to correct:
- The bfdSessDown notification is specified to be generated when the
BFD session state changes to down or adminDown, making it a
notification that the session has entered a down state.

Since this does not exactly mean that there has been a disconnection
detection, wouldn't it be better if it is only generated when
transitioning to down or adminDown from the Up state?

Transitions from init or adminDown to down or adminDown mean that the
session has not been established since the last down state and
transitions from down to
adminDown are just an administrative change, that does not change the
connectivity detection.

- The draft mostly references BFD protocol version 0 and has 0 as a
default version, but the syntax for the state follows version 1.
Shouldn't it reference version 1 as the default BFD protocol? 
In the same line, the drafts referenced are the previous ward-katz
drafts, instead of the ietf- ones.

Telefonica Empresas