MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmVZeLz-wuC04_V3QJxXDG_qOc_3KO0d3N5h0Y-dDTTFXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3747ADED-2F3A-42B8-BD72-20218D167DEE@cisco.com>
 <CA+RyBmURk5ew+DuHm9S_6yv0op=ALadoMfwWw9Qs5XLpsog2fA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmURk5ew+DuHm9S_6yv0op=ALadoMfwWw9Qs5XLpsog2fA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 17:03:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVwSyD3aERjprcTJChAVqkwf1R1JsV_TerZ4Sw54UaDDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BFD Echo mode coverage in BFD for VXLAN
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "bfd-chairs@ietf.org" <bfd-chairs@ietf.org>,
 Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000ca838058fa3e9f2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/oaewujK0GOYzfdVb0pJ_tgqRbaY>
Precedence: list

--0000000000000ca838058fa3e9f2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Dear All,
I was pointed out that my previous e-mail asking for WG help to progress
BFD over VXLAN document by sharing opinions regarding coverage of the BFD
Echo mode may be overstepping the bounds of an Editor. I apologize, that
was not my intention. I'm asking WG Chairs to help to arrive at the
conclusion of this question in a reasonable time.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:06 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> I have not set the when this poll closes. I hope that two weeks would be
> sufficient time for the WG community to express their thoughts.
>
> Dear Carlos,
> thank you for sharing your opinion on the scope of the document in regard
> to BFD Echo mode. You've expressed support for exploring the applicability
> of the BFD Echo mode. Would you support that effort by contributing some
> text, if WG decides that documenting the applicability of the Echo mode in
> BFD over VXLAN is useful?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
> cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Greg,
>>
>> The option of replacing the existing text for something more ambiguous
>> and implicit does not seem like progress in my humble opinion. The spec
>> ends up with the same capabilities, but the text is more obscure. I do not
>> support that option.
>>
>> My recommendation for your consideration would be:
>>
>>    1. Explore if it is possible to run BFD Echo as a single-hop.
>>    2. If yes, add text supporting it.
>>    3. If no, add text explaining why not on technical grounds.
>>
>>
>> A less desirable option would be if the WG does not care about BFD Echo,
>> to explicitly keep it out of scope (not on technical grounds).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Carlos.
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2019, at 6:16 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>> in course of reviews of the draft, several times a question was asked
>> about the rationale for excluding BFD Echo from the scope of this document:
>>
>> 7.  Echo BFD
>>
>>    Support for echo BFD is outside the scope of this document.
>>
>> Much appreciate your consideration of the following options:
>>
>>    - describe the applicability of BFD Echo in VXLAN environment in the
>>    document;
>>    - remove Section 7 and clarify in the Introduction
>>
>> NEW TEXT:
>>
>> This specification describes procedures only for BFD Asynchronous mode.
>>
>>
>>    - make no changes at all.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>

--0000000000000ca838058fa3e9f2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Dear All,<div>I was pointed out that my previous e-mail as=
king for WG help to progress BFD over VXLAN document by sharing opinions re=
garding coverage of the BFD Echo mode may be overstepping the bounds of an =
Editor. I apologize, that was not my intention. I&#39;m asking WG Chairs to=
 help to arrive at the conclusion of this question in a reasonable time.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Greg</div></div><br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at =
4:06 PM Greg Mirsky &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com">gregimirsk=
y@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>I have not set the whe=
n this poll closes. I hope that two weeks would be sufficient time for the =
WG community to express their thoughts.</div><div><br></div><div>Dear Carlo=
s,<div>thank you for sharing your opinion on the scope of the document in r=
egard to BFD Echo mode.=C2=A0You&#39;ve expressed support for exploring the=
 applicability of the BFD Echo mode. Would you support that effort by contr=
ibuting some text, if WG decides that documenting the applicability of the =
Echo mode in BFD over VXLAN is useful?</div></div><div><br></div><div>Regar=
ds,</div><div>Greg</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Carlo=
s Pignataro (cpignata) &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:cpignata@cisco.com" target=3D"=
_blank">cpignata@cisco.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,2=
04,204);padding-left:1ex">



<div>
Dear Greg,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The option of replacing the existing text for something more ambiguous=
 and implicit does not seem like progress in my humble opinion. The spec en=
ds up with the same capabilities, but the text is more obscure. I do not su=
pport that option.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My recommendation for your consideration would be:</div>
<div>
<ol class=3D"gmail-m_-2562258128840385888gmail-m_-7026389681012580974MailOu=
tline">
<li>Explore if it is possible to run BFD Echo as a single-hop.</li><li>If y=
es, add text supporting it.</li><li>If no, add text explaining why not on t=
echnical grounds.</li></ol>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A less desirable option would be if the WG does not care about BFD Ech=
o, to explicitly keep it out of scope (not on technical grounds).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Carlos.</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<div>On Aug 5, 2019, at 6:16 PM, Greg Mirsky &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gregimir=
sky@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gregimirsky@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div>
<br class=3D"gmail-m_-2562258128840385888gmail-m_-7026389681012580974Apple-=
interchange-newline">
<div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">Dear All,
<div>in course of reviews of the draft, several times a question was asked =
about the rationale for excluding BFD Echo from the scope of this document:=
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>7.=C2=A0 Echo BFD</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Support for echo BFD is outside the scope of this documen=
t.</div>
</blockquote>
Much appreciate your consideration of the following options:
<div>
<ul>
<li>describe the applicability of BFD Echo in VXLAN environment in the docu=
ment;</li><li>remove Section 7 and clarify in the Introduction</li></ul>
NEW TEXT:</div>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>This specification describes procedures only for BFD Asynchronous mode=
.</div>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>make no changes at all.</li></ul>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Greg</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>

</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000000ca838058fa3e9f2--