IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Some comments to the authors of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 28 February 2022 17:34 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 183513A135C; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:34:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 o49oRDsxCO4L; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (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 5A5843A1353; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id h15so18646962edv.7; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:34:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zttwmHjBHNT0jIL4sOjGWay3tgr81Y5DKql2CtSXcJA=; b=dvJmMQ3kA/HwCfoIOhM7i13xU+N9asRbnTu/v236Kv5/vGieMsV7JGSEAsVhJm7Oz8 8kp2pce9S5Nfv+Dcim4vEETOTCCzVBr3DvF+3vL/Kz1G0fdgSYNSv5VmvhHfjlnk5FwX g79eJRRu3w+jLI1qG/3vRIIYEcUNuYX/nGPLLvD4kjJdTyck9YCSlAxc2aV4FOeBzrs7 skalMW7hHbFFzPrz1vZQ31DYNpNcmKuXBojiyfowPtH1/CL25WkOKv3If7ruBOkKKcZ3 ZkrjggSQlyO/B6tQ9U/5giWNsFtszA7L65hNdnlfWNK1F0jqqIQFBeOPPa4C/bYSPGW3 cQSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zttwmHjBHNT0jIL4sOjGWay3tgr81Y5DKql2CtSXcJA=; b=jRoZ0oZHEiFPzeHylHq4zdTTF9yxgmPvU/5xRleaUbgmPkGENTw1gWxWRVJM+rG7h0 lYMdTUXoSSO+BkCdE/6I3Srruz6R5+cNN6x/2Nv4qDUCwsY9fodnSO76e59nZJ5ikCEk u4H5ZFVAJQyL9P3phGW5qDm/cFuFr47qsnijWEoxA1MKbWlo9unV9FW0eJkBStUcUvCH 2V9SdEc1xcU+5x+EvmYJ+nbAkmgNrMsEytcihDys2+YDt1MCjh9hj67rndeotsKjdTSY NXmOuCoMzlDw1X2wwoEMZm2QbUSOYyBDqBH/3aJtZvVt9MJziBhIODy8YK9bHFwx8X/m kDlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nuczrwxuGi+bGMxtRAqQ4m181Ak8JkVq+HUoUr7RCNGUv+Og0 zxOV28LUoss901dj7Z4asI2bPUxEkjVGnJ/oZLc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxm5KE+NWuZihdbKxNNyix71wsefV1I2BslIKdpvUnkjjsj6+O65PqZ0LwggW8+V/nC0xgK3uxMkNv6h6uZDnA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:27d4:b0:412:b81a:b2dc with SMTP id c20-20020a05640227d400b00412b81ab2dcmr20428971ede.87.1646069670082; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:34:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmX8oAQFqJMjVhcj_78wYfrvz+afnSoP2-VjWyfCEunqmQ@mail.gmail.com> <381777191.1553826.1645979075642@mail.yahoo.com> <CA+RyBmWerxKKS6FCyaeQApuGkVT0JehrFToPBDf-ebrLkCSLnw@mail.gmail.com> <682D13B3-A62E-4A0D-9192-2D0D5844B86B@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <682D13B3-A62E-4A0D-9192-2D0D5844B86B@pfrc.org>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:34:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUsse6pB72PG9MBmyD0sUK07GzfsossqvpCVn3Xim6TmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Some comments to the authors of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f5f9bb05d917758c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/p4vIW_9LkT0MfT8e9hIYkgKMtgE>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 17:34:37 -0000

Hi Jeff,
it is also my impression that the concept described in the draft is
different from the Passive role as defined in RFC 5880. I think that needs
to be clearly explained in the draft and, it seems to be helpful to even
use another term to avoid any possible confusion.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:35 AM Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> Not speaking for the authors here, but:
>
> On Feb 28, 2022, at 10:34 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> GIM>> Thinking of what might had confused me, I feel that it may be the
> use of "passive role" that was already described in Section 6.1 RFC 5880.
> What do you see as the distinction between the Passive role behavior as
> described in RFC 5880 and the passive role described in the draft?
>
>
> The primary distinction of this proposal is whether or not a session is
> PROVISIONED at the passive side or not.
>
> It's possible to be provisioned, and passive.
>
> This draft makes the passive side at best loosely provisioned.  "I am
> willing to accept incoming BFD sessions without having one configured".
>
> -- Jeff
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email