Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 17 January 2018 04:01 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 2ED6712EC85 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:01:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 psKfgbDSll8g for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:01:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (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 188A712EC88 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:00:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id w23so20083233lfd.11 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:00:56 -0800 (PST)
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=csV1xFX+O5SO26Sl0JRV32gM6V4uV9ongLXNtQZ6/qQ=; b=NqW7Hn3r4B8ZjVKe8EM5tH/5nW3El9R8xGmkDrFvN388EXGvp6Lm690Eea9/vn7m5m aWxbVgNP291NTnafJ7O1SGjl9OMy+vzftAh/+UMaQvGon+ALUoWdfbVVqxUFt0t83j8a 8JhZtpwG1q8yZ6EQ1PnnmpVQ2Nor1yF8SZf5Mjk8XMLjSaB0tx2wbtDJkHBlD48EZIqs 6RpaTtFy2FNoNVhTuHLZbswb/u1+N3XaA/9vBqkfHbmlc+nvyLwh6rLqrhZV6cJ75YXT bIbcrA+7KGpMp2FIARaXzpvuwdJs+wyuh3nrUCJJVZVeZhQmZueQDjhJChSEvb+IgSHq 9YLA==
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=csV1xFX+O5SO26Sl0JRV32gM6V4uV9ongLXNtQZ6/qQ=; b=uDuf2Fb7AMkXFA+h1dakLrlVN8ZwSuy0O4cTVpa6XhoDszE42D4krj32dAgKnlQZ3G I2C2qZpVCWBsZTHx1mcbxs09MmTEipEyx/W9iCCcbON31vQMr0rKJKcMrspZfQTR8fbX R/Fp6joSVjDdkyRjAiCr5sJU6M5dsYUnewJtcP7Pbnplkr4+rtSE7qZC2j0bO2OAxAvY H3Oi1BBt7gXEPtzWRS7kWeqEbxDLmj3fsOB91w4SMU+nRsyHp80OO/UB0H/C3Xw99N6F ykM3/pc9OJW3Bz/a8lvBsKr3Hro9Vq2CSZ1Hf64LyiVQqH7HT/ZgHVCKrMRjwe5co0To pjfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfbqOt6T/CVTxWlG6HIO1FNirihBGE/7474cx4WPBq5o/4qxuds uEdgXrgzO2IAfKq50dczYDIIW3y3XL6WEDZziE0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouo0xudIFpJg0DqixRuOsbmVHmMyAlZivGKYRz293j/Gry01Y6kFshp5oraoZy+yCCTyfwkOlANqZ5Yw1u020Y=
X-Received: by 10.25.19.220 with SMTP id 89mr12066430lft.57.1516161655130; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:00:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.32.136 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.46.32.136 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:00:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <639B40D7-F79B-4546-93B3-55812C880217@cisco.com>
References: <20171213172443.GC8708@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmX6PHczvwEzc4UNqBioK8qv=wTfyeHg9j04EJNe1Uv0wA@mail.gmail.com> <746F74E2-7DFC-41A7-879F-4054CF95475C@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWqGPTkBek+a0N+BaFr9QZ+xEKvWT5oRxPBuhFsQcizcw@mail.gmail.com> <38B53F72-66B9-4E8F-8BCE-C28A2C283D38@cisco.com> <20171219160537.GH8708@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmWQTH9N9cCOHJ_9BgvfDGLGFgrsKrMj8mmqGm-V=5KLSw@mail.gmail.com> <20171220171322.GE8708@pfrc.org> <7C073038-8E7D-4735-82A4-97592AA9B34B@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmXanVpKKmyXP9+yuh4z2H4qAeN4jH2xEMx7ddiSHViV3g@mail.gmail.com> <DB3B0F10-4BD8-4096-8875-2E476064E77A@cisco.com> <491F0297-F2AB-4377-A013-1050FDBBB709@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmVXO0o09k-DYY69E2sKdKiU5YBf-h=PnBgerx+HF=ryfg@mail.gmail.com> <44B4B608-7A2B-4E95-A5F7-116896C57028@cisco.com> <0714A770-BF3F-4EF8-A302-A478439A5B13@cisco.com> <5F69E3D1-19E1-45F7-926D-61449E1F09B2@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWMwom+2=jWHfvSr9AG=WPCnhYJ6uC9HVonVFh9McaysQ@mail.gmail.com> <E14FF8C0-082B-4D52-89F6-0CBAF9CD4181@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmUOpBgVho0SPsp9FB=ymFV29q_2EY2k8uOf-O4gfpTmyw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXs_gRjeUk9gx0653WkvjDfztD-cgNw=mNX+66Whj_AFw@mail.gmail.com> <639B40D7-F79B-4546-93B3-55812C880217@cisco.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:00:54 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUEG2L4ExWRCvLYVMs=BL5OsGRpfD0a9RLEvu+4Avhy9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f16e0e04db90562f0e4a2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/n5h7M0Cvo1CMvgyHl_X3t6jwjrs>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 17 Jan 2018 04:01:04 -0000

Hi Reshad,
sorry for my sloppiness. Fixed.

Regards, Greg

On Jan 16, 2018 7:05 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> In 4.4.1 of MP, “A number values of the state variable are added to the…”,
> looks like there is a missing “of”?
>
>
>
> For the active-tail draft I haven’t completed my review of -06 yet: there
> are parts which aren’t clear to me and I don’t know yet if this is because
> there’s something missing in the document or whether it’s just lack of
> understanding on my part.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 9:25 PM
> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;
> *Cc: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>;, Jeffrey Haas <
> jhaas@pfrc.org>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"; <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
>
>
>
> Hi Reshad, et. al,
>
> the attached are diff to highlight updates to BFD in Multipoint Network
> and the working copy of Active Tails. After checking through the Active
> Tails draft, I've found no additional changes to make resulting from
> removing all references to bfd.SilentTail from BFD in Multipoint Networks
> draft. Your review and comments are most welcome.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
> Hi Reshad,
>
> thank you. I'll add it into the working version to others updates. I
> believe changes to active tails be more extensive as now it must introduce
> the bfd.SilentTail variable, not just its new state. Will work on that now.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <
> rrahman@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> I am fine with the change below.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 2:20 PM
> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;
> *Cc: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>;, Jeffrey Haas <
> jhaas@pfrc.org>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"; <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
>
>
>
> Hi Reshad,
>
> I think this is very good idea. Then in section 4.13.3 Transmitting BFD
> Packets of BFD for Multipoint Networks should be edited. Perhaps the
> following be acceptable:
>
> OLD TEXT
>
>    A system MUST NOT transmit any BFD Control packets if bfd.SilentTail
>
>    is 1.
>
> NEW TEXT
>
>    A system MUST NOT transmit any BFD Control packets if bfd.SessionType is
>
>    MultipointTail.
>
> Will look into related changes in active tails if others agree with the proposal in general.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <
> rrahman@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
> Regarding bfd.SilentTail, I am wondering if instead it should be removed
> from MP draft  (always 1 in there) and kept as new state variable in
> active-tail?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 9:32 AM
> *To: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>;, Greg Mirsky <
> gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
> *Cc: *Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"; <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
>
>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> The changes for bfd.SessionType (in both drafts) look good.
>
>
>
> bfd.SilentTail is fine in multipoint but in active-tail it is in the New
> State Variables section.  It should be in 3.3.2 instead and there should be
> a reference to the multipoint draft.
>
>
>
> Also, I am in the process of doing the shepherd write-up. So you don’t
> have to push these changes immediately, you can wait for the review, up to
> you.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>;
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 1:47 AM
> *To: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
> *Cc: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;, Jeffrey Haas <
> jhaas@pfrc.org>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"; <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
>
>
>
> Looks good to me, Greg. Thanks.
>
> Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
>
> Excuze typofraphicak errows
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 15:32, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> Hi Reshad and Carlos,
>
> thank you for your suggestions. Please check the diffs with proposed
> changes to BFD Multipoint and BFD Multipoint with active tails drafts
> (attached).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
> cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
> Reshad, Greg,
>
>
>
> Indeed, it seems the content of the section is updated, but the title is
> misleading. The same applies to the active-tail doc:
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-
> active-tail-06#section-3.3.1
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12#section-4.4.1
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> —
> Carlos Pignataro, carlos@cisco.com
>
> *“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself
> sound more photosynthesis."*
>
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>;
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Section 4.4.1 still says “New state variables” for bfd.SessionType and the
> text still starts with “A number of state variables and their values are
> added…”, so I misinterpreted that as bfd.SessionType is being added as new
> state variable.
>
>
>
> Please consider splitting this section in 2 parts for clarification e.g.
> 4.4.1 for New State Variables (bfd.SilentTail) and 4.4.2 for New State
> Variable Values (bfd.SessionType).
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12#section-4.4.1
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
> *Date: *Monday, January 15, 2018 at 6:17 PM
> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;
> *Cc: *Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>;, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <
> cpignata@cisco.com>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"; <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
>
>
>
> Hi Reshad,
>
> I thought I've addressed them as per Carlos suggestion. Have I missed
> anything?
>
>
>
> Regards, Greg
>
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2018 3:00 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;
> wrote:
>
> The changes for bfd.SessionType (it’s not a new state variable but uses
> what’s defined in RFC7880) weren’t made in the latest revision.
>
> Greg, do you plan on addressing this soon? Or there’s no consensus on this
> topic yet?
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> On 2017-12-20, 12:09 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" <
> rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jhaas@pfrc.org>; wrote:
>
>     Greg,
>
>     On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:17:02PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>     > Hi Carlos and Jeff,
>     > thank you for responding so expediently. I think we've reached the
> rough
>     > consensus. Attached are the diffs for both BFD documents and the
> updated
>     > copies. Please let me know if the changes being made have addressed
> all the
>     > comments received during the WGLC. I'll then upload new versions.
>
>     I believe this covers all points I've seen on the mailing list to date.
>
>     Please push the updates.
>
>     We'll have further discussion about the need for a registry in
> conjunction
>     with the Yang module implications discussion.
>
>     -- Jeff
>
>     > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>;
> wrote:
>     [...]
>     > > At this point it is also worth noting that the session type has no
>     > > centralized location covering their enumerations.  This leads to
> two
>     > > interesting observations:
>     > > - We could have an IANA registry for such things.  However, I'm
> not sure
>     > >   this is really need.  But this also means:
>     > > - Here's another case why some pieces of the BFD yang module
> likely shoudl
>     > >   be IANA maintained.  In this case, the bfd-path-type identity as
> the
>     > >   relevant example.
>
>
>
>
>
> <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-06.txt -
> draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-07.txt.html>
>
> <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12.txt - draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-13.
> txt.html>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>