Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)

Greg Mirsky <> Mon, 07 August 2017 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3882132421 for <>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BDnUYrWqWzE7 for <>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 780131323F5 for <>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d145so9332883qkc.2 for <>; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 13:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bhaIn/HhJERZKrv8Mm4d392HoqLWocEE7dODfCCJph0=; b=Emf9qzhFwMWSUdwrCgN+OeNF49dN0NCHL0Y0lAc7XmwefPsH23BJMmmUvcugPGkPJw LZ/9ryIhCNrE88fZI64JpRBhHXHl6WHg6rKO64KAmlkfB4gWPLfus8Gib+W7yk6eowlm E7sI9gCI1llDi9ncQ8QbiJPa1qAAoKTH8OfagulSbDxh9JdK3IB9rl4AHFl3Rr6aDcWd BGHyKXQL2rSdHZ25a++zLFw0q9GBpAQaHJ4jtC5z4vGLMuU+SNyuXpU7vPWynTJ0Z9xv 3CVflp27uQofMl2xe7f3QTKHK+BVkALpbp4RtgGuyJXL7C8qHotMAnj48vXbqb7G9IAC ZFbg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bhaIn/HhJERZKrv8Mm4d392HoqLWocEE7dODfCCJph0=; b=SBQwbMBusfpbaUrIJDAv2xAGJaosX1TCCHYAnjzuVWlgSXxc5taKRqFS1aFAVii445 5mPTSWpyB1cBLroUbH9FZQjcPX1FuLndk+HjeTR5McMufWxF86zB30LiLfAYIpVnCaAm TaKVb+ZUGgJgzGK1Q9EQB8eYH6C1CYoWfWBS6dLkItIXzbQdb3UpSiadQXL+uKmrGmfX Cxh3mz7pDoMCd67t43zvoHlaxv29njRUpYMjWt/npH3RztYgHmzv8qJ+LdPpvQVWywTv o2eeMnIp8tuQF5abEiGS1t6V8yDxi5EB36rBpclsONojz9AvYv7PF9rkJXKjDbSVwJEt 8hEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gyY8NN7l2GdtiMygRupgFqmS6b1DJ18ndxfCp5RcNtP/+NDohZ tKxrRtDqpD3XnTvZsvv9SGhXevjpXq9J
X-Received: by with SMTP id d188mr2482155qkf.181.1502138068470; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 13:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:34:28 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)
To: Jeffrey Haas <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06f336f9925905562fc54c"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 20:34:32 -0000

Hi Jeff, et. al,
I've missed the part of active-tails in the WGLC. My apologies. Though it
may be too late, I'll send my notes by the end of the week.
Since the targeted track to the active-tails draft may be changed from
Standard to Experimental perhaps we should inform the TRILL WG as TRILL
Support of Point to Multipoint BFD
<> has active-tails
as its normative reference and very much relies on its functionality to
keep the root informed of failure in p2mp tree.

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Jeffrey Haas <> wrote:

> Working Group,
> The BFD Multipoint documents have been stable for some time.  Prior
> discussion at meetings has suggested we have an implementation for the main
> protocol component.  Also per prior discussions, we split the active-tail
> component of the original multipoint document to permit implementors to not
> have to worry about implementing active-tail procedures if they weren't
> interested in that feature.
> We are starting an extended last call on these documents.  The WGLC will
> conclude on July 14.  This provides ample time for list discussion.  If
> necessary, the IETF-99 meeting may provide for opportunities to close any
> contentious technical points.  (BFD is not currently scheduled to meet.)
> One item I would like to kick off is the document status of the active-tail
> mechanism.  At this time, no one has implemented it that I am aware of.
> Discussion with our AD suggests that publishing the document with
> Experimental status may be reasonable to preserve the work that went into
> the proposal.
> -- Jeff