New draft version (was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01.txt)

Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de> Wed, 11 June 2014 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <marc@sniff.de>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7DC71A01AB for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no
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 zp0UEVQcuNCh for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from door.sniff.de (door.sniff.de [IPv6:2001:6f8:94f:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9131A01A5 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.sniff.de [127.0.0.1]) by door.sniff.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DD02AA0F; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:09:56 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:09:56 -0700
From: Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de>
To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20140611090956037602.d9c15051@sniff.de>
In-Reply-To: <20140611154735.6320.33736.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20140611154735.6320.33736.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Subject: New draft version (was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01.txt)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: GyazMail version 1.5.15
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/gqX51hRB0g86ugmpOAAcx500-wk
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:10:03 -0000

Hello BFD experts,

we have uploaded a new version of our draft draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01. As 
you can see from the diff the changes are mainly a cleanup:

* typo found/fixed

* changed a MUST to SHOULD as this is an informal draft.

* removed appendix C, which was kind of a to-do list.

* realized in appendix B that in the last negotiation steps "B" does not need 
to send 1sec in the control packets. Instead 300msec is fine and also more 
aligned to the current behaviour described in RFC5880. In essence you don't 
start a new Poll sequence when the negotiated interval Max(remote, local) can 
be supported by your implementation.


As usual: feedback is welcome!


Thanks & Regards,
Marc



On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:47:35 -0700, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> 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           : Common Interval Support in BFD
>         Authors         : Nobo Akiya
>                           Marc Binderberger
>                           Greg Mirsky
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01.txt
> 	Pages           : 8
> 	Date            : 2014-06-11
> 
> Abstract:
>    Some BFD implementations may be restricted to only support several
>    interval values.  When such BFD implementations speak to each other,
>    there is a possibility of two sides not being able to find a common
>    interval value to run BFD sessions.
> 
>    This document defines a small set of interval values for BFD that we
>    call "Common intervals", and recommends implementations to support
>    the defined intervals.  This solves the problem of finding an
>    interval value that both BFD speakers can support while allowing a
>    simplified implementation as seen for hardware-based BFD.  It does
>    not restrict an implementation from supporting more intervals in
>    addition to the Common intervals.
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-intervals/
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>