RE: document layout for singlehop, multihop and generic

"Peter Arberg" <parberg@redback.com> Tue, 25 October 2005 21:07 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EUW0f-00018S-Nm; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:07:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EUW0d-00012Q-H5 for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:07:03 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14508 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:06:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EUWDe-00021Y-WE for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:20:31 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4DF5B3011; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22597-02; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PARBETM2XP (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839F75B300D; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter Arberg <parberg@redback.com>
To: 'David Ward' <dward@cisco.com>, 'Pekka Savola' <pekkas@netcore.fi>, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, 'Jeffrey Haas' <jhaas@nexthop.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:06:42 +0200
Organization: Redback Networks
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
In-Reply-To: <BF8403A0.13B87%dward@cisco.com>
Thread-Index: AcXZpV8zeozhXwXcSieE1DNqpwdezAAAQrPQ
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Message-Id: <20051025210647.839F75B300D@prattle.redback.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
Subject: RE: document layout for singlehop, multihop and generic
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: parberg@redback.com
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

I have one suggestion which I would like to see in one of the
documents, best fit would proabably be in the 1hop document,
but could also be in the generic one.

The usage of BFD over 802.3ad ethernet link-groups, in an
application to detect faults in the individual links inside
the link-group.

(not BFD over ethernet, but using the BFD over UDP approach)

I could propose some text for this, and we can discuss it
based on this, and then if you do not think it belongs in either 
of these document, or it is to late in the game to propose
changes,  then I could create a new internet-draft with a 
suggestion for this functionality.

thanks,
Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Ward
> Sent: 25. oktober 2005 22:46
> To: Pekka Savola; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; David Ward; Jeffrey Haas
> Subject: Re: document layout for singlehop, multihop and generic
> 
> We covered this at the last several WG meetings. The issue 
> is: reorganizing
> the docs w/o changing the content vs getting the docs to spec 
> ... The WG
> agreed to get the docs to full standard.
> 
> -DWard
> 
> 
> On 10/25/05 5:22 AM, "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm still puzzled by the coverage of various documents:
> > 
> > 1) bfd-multihop-03: about 3 pages of very generic (non-protocol
> > specific) guidance on multihop BFD sessions.
> > 
> > 2) bfd-v4v6-1hop-04: the first 4.5 pages are very generic single-hop
> > BGP guidance (applicable to any single hop BFD 
> application), the next
> > 4 pages detail a number of OSPF/IS-IS details for single-hop cases
> > 
> > 3) bfd-generic-01: about 5 pages of generic BFD guidance (not
> > specific to either single or multihop).
> > 
> > This seems like patchwork.  IMHO, a more logical separation might be
> > having everything generic (either single or multihop) in 
> one document
> > and moving the protocol-specific details out of v2v6-1hop to a
> > separate BFD+OSPF/ISIS document.
>