Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18: (with COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 04 July 2018 18:56 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2DF130DC8; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint@ietf.org, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, bfd-chairs@ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153073058888.27351.11589967542823112127.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 11:56:28 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/kOelrk6lsn6hQaDhkolqZ9Z_240>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 18:56:30 -0000
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18: 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-multipoint/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) This document is marked as Updating rfc5880, buy §4.1 (in rfc5880), still has this text: Multipoint (M) This bit is reserved for future point-to-multipoint extensions to BFD. It MUST be zero on both transmit and receipt. ...which should also be addressed in this document. (2) §5.3. (Session Failure Semantics): "If a MultipointTail session fails...the tail should take appropriate action." What is an "appropriate action"? I'm guessing that this has to do with I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail, but that only applies if a return path exists. In the general case, should the tail take any action? Please clarify. (3) §5.7 and §5.13.2 talk about "the identity of the multipoint path" -- what is that? (4) §5.13.2: If a session is not found, a new session of type MultipointTail MAY be created, or the packet MAY be discarded. This choice MAY be controlled by the local policy, e.g. a maximum number of MultipointTail sessions and number of active MultipointTail sessions, and is outside the scope of this specification. I think the last "MAY" above is out of place (s/MAY/may): if local policy doesn't exist, what is the option? The text says that this topic is outside the scope...but I'm not sure if that means the local policy or the choice itself. §8 (Security Considerations) offers some more insight...but it doesn't explicitly specify a limit to the number of MultipointTail sessions -- should one exist? The text above also calls out the "number of active MultipointTail sessions" as if it were something different (from simply the number of MultipointTail sessions), but this difference is not explained or mentioned anywhere else. Is there a difference? Is there a need to call this out? (5) Nit: Please don't abbreviate to "My Discr" and "Your Discr".
- Re: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bf… Greg Mirsky
- Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-mu… Alvaro Retana