Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 18 February 2019 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 3A1C1130F18 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:26:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 MTSpXujCCuIM for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6567130F03 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A4B171E2D8; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:25:44 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:25:44 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand
Message-ID: <20190218152544.GG28950@pfrc.org>
References: <20181017222431.GK17157@pfrc.org> <20181121222755.GC23096@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmWeRoySs4a8he5ZGMz-_FDjzTeHMCd_4WksDSCqB5aEYw@mail.gmail.com> <20181210220953.GA6053@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmW+pxqk6OmT4H1233XY-T7O06azGodUNu24Pu22aqhtMg@mail.gmail.com> <20190216163154.GC28950@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmUp0jhNjPFO_xgdm_1dNnxYSiNhBfCsoVJKNj6rOFRjvw@mail.gmail.com> <20190216184510.GF28950@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmUHm5YnbuFp6oiXUVnVS+0kfSW8xdJqjwC+HiP_WfqKBA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmUHm5YnbuFp6oiXUVnVS+0kfSW8xdJqjwC+HiP_WfqKBA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/sKXCPGW2cU-qy-y3bJa95ShyRis>
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, 18 Feb 2019 15:26:49 -0000

Greg,

Answering this message with the reply partially reorganized.


On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 04:40:31PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:46 AM Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
> > > GIM>> The behavior of the system in Demand mode is introduced as
> > optional.
> > > And that is precisely the update to RFC 5880.
> >
> > I don't understand.
> >
> > Basically, 5880, 5884 leave demand as an option.  It's built into the
> > specs.
> > It's unclear what you're suggesting being changed.
> >
> GIM2>> RFC 5884 leaves the Demand mode outside its scope. RFC 5884 does not
> discuss how the Demand mode may be used in BFD over MPLS LSPs.

Even thought the RFC says demand mode is out of scope, 5880 is clear about
how demand mode works.  I'm not seeing anything in your draft that alters
that procedure.

Basically, no draft is needed for a one-liner: you can use demand mode.

> GIM2>> Is the fact that the patent application is not yet published the
> sole foundation for your objection to adopting this draft as Chair of BFD
> WG or as an individual contributor? Is there any IETF document that
> requires that the patent must be published before the draft can be adopted
> or published as RFC?

The sole reason for mentioning this is demand mode is clear.  BFD over mpls
is clear.  You're asserting some sort of IPR on things that are already
clear.  So, either your draft itself is unclear on some new thing you're
asserting IPR on, or you're not actually covering something new.  That's it.

-- Jeff