Re: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted

"Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com> Tue, 30 October 2018 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <naiming@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 49BCD1274D0; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 18:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 itQBydRZWXhn; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 18:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0676126DBF; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 18:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2730; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540864691; x=1542074291; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=zjyV0HRcAhjc0/0uOfpYuT5reyLbDlGQU/bk04+fZKQ=; b=jxwr0CqrMGorANlHB8T93uAHQkuNIZitdJzShHTQEkRaaYnEVfiN7Ljr WZTzpX4o9VA5T0qppQ8wrmnWWsR+ep5Il9VEfxpuhA7HJXNUWOgDIk44U PbXgPu3x7qA35HKEHclH5MQLb3Uvu8mCQhj7QuKJidZzfhTu8dS1AM+uV Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAAAIutdb/5pdJa1kGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBggRmfxUTCoNriBiMGYFoJZcggXoLAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?jhEkCF4MWITQNDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhToBAQEBAgEjEUUFBwQCAQgRBAEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?CJgICAjAVCAgCBA4FG4MGAYF5CA+pZYEuhD5AhR8FgQuKXBeCAIE4DBOCTIM?= =?us-ascii?q?bAgMBgV2DBDGCJgKJKpVfCQKGaIoaGIFShHeJfoxwigUCERSBJh04gVVwFWU?= =?us-ascii?q?BgkGLGYU+b4wGgR8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,442,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="472995793"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Oct 2018 01:58:10 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9U1wAPa027588 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Oct 2018 01:58:10 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:58:09 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:58:09 -0500
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
CC: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org" <draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted
Thread-Index: AQHUb5+E62EdVh/GO0aQbosNraNnAaU3OZaAgAAi/gA=
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 01:58:09 +0000
Message-ID: <92F496D8-8260-4065-B03A-F967BC146324@cisco.com>
References: <20181029155232.GN12336@pfrc.org> <75992c66b45345f59e420d832d1b54b8@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <75992c66b45345f59e420d832d1b54b8@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
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: [10.154.208.180]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B556851DD6E0CC458CD382287AD2FAD3@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/hvmCqQI8Wq9xTSKHbAsekhI3bnU>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 30 Oct 2018 01:58:15 -0000

I’m not aware of an implementation taking in the inbound BFD packets,
then dynamically seting up a session to the received packet sender end-point.
As Jeff mentioned Redback planed on this, but didn’t implement. So there most
likely needs some BFD implementation changes.

Regards,
- Naiming

> On Oct 29, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> The problem the draft addresses is valid and makes sense to address. But I know there are implementations which have addressed this issue w/o requiring any changes to their BFD implementation - so I am not sure how popular this solution will be.
> 
> So long as this stays Informational I think it is fine to adopt. I would not be as enthused if this is moved to Standards track.
> 
>   Les
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
>> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:53 AM
>> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org
>> Subject: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted
>> 
>> Working Group,
>> 
>> Reviewing my notes, I was remiss in sending out an adoption request for
>> draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted (Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications).
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited/
>> 
>> This relatively minor change from the RFC 5880 spec is implemented by at
>> least one vendor for static route configuration.  Its security
>> considerations already cover what I believe to be the main concern with the
>> procedural change.
>> 
>> There's a minor point to resolve regarding the document's status - currently
>> Informational - with our AD.
>> 
>> Please indicate whether you'd support adopting this draft as a Working
>> Group
>> document.
>> 
>> Authors, please indicate if you're aware of any applicable IPR on it.
>> 
>> This adoption request will also end on Friday, November 9, IETF 103 Friday.
>> 
>> -- Jeff & Reshad
>