IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-10: (with COMMENT)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Thu, 05 May 2016 02:38 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 2F3DB12D10C; Wed, 4 May 2016 19:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-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 tDu2sBL42FkL; Wed, 4 May 2016 19:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 325FA12B012; Wed, 4 May 2016 19:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3607; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1462415920; x=1463625520; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=tqsRWUUuNnPq3QMDsN8wk9uZvtuueEaW2gdSIHB2N+c=; b=dSoLM/9kv1NyZPdDxNOOZA7piEQnZcmiTG8JljV8iD7908S/Ns8ZFowp 2+oVL2Q+/zpFKpFi5kr5VCDXtuRwjS0ihvZXeCIe31yqszD5VIPK5lbkK +uFmDtBaZzm1EKipiuLYgOcS1TrQ63e8R3fs3JKrlH2254JXJdLOGwbGI o=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 841
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CqBQAfsSpX/4kNJK1egzhTfQa3V4IdgXYihW4CgTs6EgEBAQEBAQFlJ4RBAQEBAwEjVgULAgEIGCoCAjIlAgQOBQ6IFAgOrTaQcAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ0EBIYggXaCVoQREQFOgk4rgi4Fh3iLLIR1AYMngWdtiByBaIRNiF6PMwEnBDeCNoE1bAGHJDZ/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,580,1454976000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="103849889"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 May 2016 02:38:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u452ccJw026596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 May 2016 02:38:39 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 4 May 2016 22:38:38 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 4 May 2016 22:38:38 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-10: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-10: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRpnKQsB2v8U66aUWfiSKwfRwTwZ+p5JyA
Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 02:38:38 +0000
Message-ID: <67A5D11F-A797-42D1-A1DE-02DAAD8CA760@cisco.com>
References: <20160505020508.8260.51761.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160505020508.8260.51761.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.209.14]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_588C94E7-1F87-4AD1-8179-7FF009706E19"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/fVWibbfizI7NKgHMWrbVoo27S1g>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base@ietf.org>, "bfd-chairs@ietf.org" <bfd-chairs@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 05 May 2016 02:38:42 -0000

Thanks for the review, Suresh! Please see inline.

> On May 4, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-10: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Section 3:
> 
> This sentence is not clear. Which one of the following Options (1&2) do
> you intend? I am guessing 2, but it may make sense to clarify in either
> case.
> 

Yes, option 2.

> Current:
> 
>   Once the above setup is complete, any network node, having the
>   knowledge of the S-BFD discriminator allocated to by a remote node to
>   remote entity/entities
> 
> Option 1:
> 
>   Once the above setup is complete, any network node, having the
>   knowledge of the S-BFD discriminator allocated to it by a remote node
> to
>   remote entity/entities
> 
> Option 2:
> 
>   Once the above setup is complete, any network node, having the
>   knowledge of the S-BFD discriminator allocated by a remote node to
>   remote entity/entities
> 
> Section 7.2.1.  Responder Demultiplexing
> 
> The last step in section seems to be pointing to the initiator packet
> transmission. Shouldn't this point to the responder procedures (Section
> 7.2.2) instead?
> 

Indeed. This should be 7.2.2 (somehow hardcoded in the xml source instead of a pointer).

We can fix these two.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

> "Chosen reflector BFD session SHOULD transmit a response BFD control
> packet using procedures described in Section 7.3.2."
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email