Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18: (with COMMENT)
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 04 July 2018 23:20 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 F33F11294D7; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 16:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 H_tNM6uzhgR5; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 16:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x242.google.com (mail-lf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC73D130DEE; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 16:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id y200-v6so5412244lfd.7; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 16:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=C9U2yimPd3wtIclGw81W6J7deBl1Hg/FzemUf0v/nrM=; b=TJTencfacN01kylkL2ZD2bcfPoTl6vRyQclx1598AZ3G+OQnyVEYuC2V9rlOO/i9WD gmATbwoX5KGqeLrxAJ786bMRyILq7ymf5YkJaK5soqomeYZKxsb19slRXIXYilIiZg4M gW2hzsY65aqIFLagaFro1sqeaGUFGvlOD0ZpEqfyKmoMENGw+ioGdodIPu24NEQJgm4Z OlMTwX2hqkQn5BeJs23/+SxoeoZHVoM1ejgxVcxAaghK3VkOblcDuId87wNJKg8LBBHc fBkWfDYM0Svv3Qi6pmk3Yxk3A4p/0cEnIlcG5skKgOdyzY8nHmD9LEETennuDTFkr08N njtg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=C9U2yimPd3wtIclGw81W6J7deBl1Hg/FzemUf0v/nrM=; b=TzN5KtgFUC45mX64EKyYphJ1RE5JRMUhcD8Csm9ddETaYR/oqYAprwcFERZr+zDdJM 5y+nhX1pL/ZhmMAqQVnom1dHPiSR+veuQf9l/ePhNnOhCGCuT4x5SwVOji4sCH3kadvk EeBeTdXii+fgzkCZSk9QwtGKr/bA58wdqwCGtoDpOSZaRP7nb2eylEn+ds8GIpbg4hD0 MTBj2cyhy5knQL1dvi2h5U9AWZ5kHGT3sTXYU6JghVoIQ0JKwXI0k7HnZVjv2ytr2Dek JRitv0mv4smuW492So529socZLiSwYjamSRgdWL3RdcIMOPNwwFSQ8evzqaZpFKRxJ3x ncPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0BfcD2AsjbZLg74Q1sYLaL0xT1mfNc7ZXYR4UbtQy+PGH3REbB 19ecXLKna/TldMthAepsc/37ZfZRQqZQ3M1V2KE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpclRmwnzH+XkhRv48oHH3zzHXAxKqZdAJMstmCZdcl6BQuhHYHpQEajA8pkaKIy9HggA/GvWFBSTaOYeWge4m0=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:7609:: with SMTP id c9-v6mr2527336lff.73.1530746441069; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 16:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a2e:6e08:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 16:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <153058620656.16408.3046099961115857075.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <153058620656.16408.3046099961115857075.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 16:20:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVVrWSbV-vemBoaizTeML0mHijUQY0nRvm26Ks6juFJ+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18: (with COMMENT)
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint@ietf.org, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, bfd-chairs@ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dc78d0057034ad45"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/kRh02S1nWeEwXrC9tNfBHVFzX9k>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 23:20:46 -0000
Hi Adam, thank you for the review and helpful comments. Please find my answers in-line tagged GIM>>. Regards, Greg On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > Adam Roach 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > The text in §5.1 says that MultipointHead sessions send packets with the M > bit > set. It probably bears mention that this is an explicit update to the RFC > 5880 > requirement that "It MUST be zero on both transmit and receipt." > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------------- > > Nit (from id-nits): > > -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5880, but the > abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. > GIM>> Added to Abstract: This document updates RFC 5880. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------------- > > §4: > > > If no > > BFD Control packets are received by a tail for a detection time, the > > tail declares the path to having failed. > > Nit: "...to have failed." > GIM>> Would this be acceptable: If no BFD Control packets are received by a tail for a detection time, the tail declares that the path has failed. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------------- > > §5.6: > > > A session of type MultipointHead is created for each multipoint path > > over which the head wishes to run BFD. This session runs in the > > Active role , per section 6.1 [RFC5880]. Except when > > Nit: extra space before comma > GIM>> Thank you. Done.