Re: Several questions about the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo

Greg Mirsky <> Wed, 05 April 2023 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67A0C14CF1A; Wed, 5 Apr 2023 16:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.095
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VuYQbILi2ybP; Wed, 5 Apr 2023 16:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0542EC15152B; Wed, 5 Apr 2023 16:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d3so16621029ybu.1; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 16:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; t=1680737830; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=J+Ozaw6kDnoHbdMiDPrlnaiYs933vHjCm05QGXQs+8E=; b=ICtKGhw6oI+7wL0hViV6Czutqzc6J2dMpQ/502EQK3f1QiJsxNJ6pejeyvA8k2zrKA z/W1T5bEUGYXws1s+eODKZjz5R5yuZOseLjW3M8k825DgUd4sEkrchbiXe1z0qDYN9ah o4NwgUXQwHPfin9iQrc5XKP8KEufPpZH5I6YJoPPn0bahk1UZt+5jLnNC2ntdxUPgRF9 LIp+G9ONezFBOfnqU4dE3VoYS1U5cvkC80cPwTZU8DnErM82dghnerUbjCzbKdNJlELE T/N+aEld3HiKes6hSYN7yAk9q8AS4QLyUBhnEFNDCcb2zHMANAqeUyHJ2DJ8Vbbqe1wC SZTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; t=1680737830; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=J+Ozaw6kDnoHbdMiDPrlnaiYs933vHjCm05QGXQs+8E=; b=yjFKjus1D0iKUjgrfgfRoIx8QCdmTb/+wqp109TAOgFCIXkor9oghDfEWo7f9vwiCV 21NICOgBqzmhnfT3PlpGPoPF7p0dC9enRbXacB2g+iARtHlsPbO4EeF0ys1xg0JV9F2T lBK8Urim0xilX5xjSvkPZ5AUTCZKzF/vJ/eYOEY6Z7ROC9gMnPOcq1gsIaP84PGciYmZ +LuhDD60MyOYL4P9rsLSlQckpkDgZKivy6awqEhX8grJsAzE7Kdz87Sv2GRDtc6J7yfP 0UkclCVSGtjwBioD90uesC3kkTWE36wCvmtY8q3lTpSdQ0Su8RfAOjXP/mqSCCM6ZIaY 3Ryw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eJxI0UGNCxihn5BzJ3sb1T6YRQn8zZBOwsmu4tG8bbepiWeBUY SXehL+E5uengNYZ4sckW0vCzLW5vsWhkbLSleaU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Yd+zNzd29hmqSt7fsfszVBBHr8fX7CB5oMVq/V6MGWQlNf+78A3/wQwzQPZrzDpI5h688r75t59kWdB/my7O0=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:cfc8:0:b0:b73:caa7:f05e with SMTP id f191-20020a25cfc8000000b00b73caa7f05emr779070ybg.2.1680737829930; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 16:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2023 16:36:58 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Several questions about the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <>, David Sinicrope <>, Xiao Min <>, "" <>, rtg-bfd WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005051ec05f89f457f"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2023 23:37:11 -0000

Hi, Dave, Jeff, et al.,
I was looking for the BFD WG liaison to BBF and its response. I appreciate
it if you help me to find out what was the BBF response, as the
draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo is in the WG LC.

Thank you in advance.


On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:05 AM David Sinicrope <>

> Hi Jeff, (Sorry for bouncing around email addresses on you… IT challenges
> this week)
> Thanks for clarifying the assertion concerning BBF interest.  Still, given
> the statement in the adoption call and the clear references to TR-146 in
> the draft, it would be a good idea to liaise to BBF, even if brief, and let
> them know of the draft and its relation to TR-146.  It certainly couldn’t
> hurt to have open communication with them on the subject.
> Regarding your check with the IESG on the liaison - please proceed as you
> deem appropriate.  I will say, (and apologies if I’m stating well known
> details) that typically liaisons don’t need IESG approval.  They are
> normally crafted/drafted by the WG Chairs, and have some level of review
> and approval by the WG(s) in question or impacted.
> I hope this helps find the most expeditious and effective way to proceed.
> Thanks,
> Dave
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:38 Jeffrey Haas <> wrote:
>> David,
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:18:38PM +0000, David Sinicrope wrote:
>> > Sorry, I don't recall our discussion, but then it would have been as
>> long ago as Singapore in Nov 2019 or before.
>> > (Is it possible you spoke with Dave Allan?)
>> That's possible!  As I noted in the thread, my notes from that lunch are
>> missing.  (I have strong words for Microsoft about their support for Mac
>> mail, but that's a different story.)  Whomever I had a conversation with
>> it
>> was in a subterranean warren of lunch venues.  Perhaps that will jar
>> someone's memory of the venue.
>> If you have contact info for Dave Allen I can certainly followup with him.
>> > I can say as the BBF Liaison Manager there have been many past claims of
>> > BBF interest in IETF work without substantiation.  As a result, it has
>> > been key to ensure that any statement of BBF interest in IETF work,
>> > especially if made to encourage action in the IETF, be formally
>> supported
>> > via a liaison.    Searching the Liaison Statements in
>> > Datatracker<>, I don't see a
>> liaison
>> > from either the BBF or IETF related to this work.
>> Please note that I don't believe we're asserting that BBF is interested in
>> IETF in doing this work for BBF.  And perhaps the easiest answer we'll
>> converge to is "remove all mention of BBF".
>> That said, throughout the discussion that lead to this draft, it was
>> pointed
>> out to the original authors that they were largely covering the TR-146 use
>> case.  Minimally, making sure we have a BBF statement regarding the IETF
>> work may make sense.
>> > Also, to the best of my knowledge, the issues that this draft addresses
>> > have not been raised in BBF. E.g., a proposal for revision to TR-146 or
>> > related documents.
>> I am not a participant in BBF and have no knowledge of any such
>> communications one way or the other.  Informally, the discussions I have
>> been involved in both with the BFD draft in question and in prior contexts
>> at my employer have mostly been that the BBF procedures are somewhat
>> inspecific and cleaner documented procedures for the use case are desired.
>> > Given the stated overlap and application of the draft to TR-146 (in the
>> adoption call),
>> [...]
>> > I would suggest that a liaison be crafted and sent to the BBF formally
>> > notifying them of this work and inquiring as to the interest in the
>> > content of the draft.  Fortunately, the next BBF meeting where such a
>> > liaison would be addressed and responded to is 29 Nov - 3 Dec 2021.  The
>> > sooner the liaison is sent, the more likely a timely response coming out
>> > of this upcoming meeting.
>> I think we could make such a deadline.  I'll start discussion with our AD
>> to
>> see what the IESG will want for the liaison statement.
>> Meanwhile, I'll see if I can contact Dave Allen to try to get
>> clarification
>> of what we discussed over lunch - if it was him.
>> -- Jeff
> --
> David Sinicrope