Followup on my comments
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 22 July 2019 15:51 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B322120179; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 VSGyIdsghtKS; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (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 DB53912012B; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id x25so38154515ljh.2; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XjRnqVf9ss6bC6TGUHLewZ86D8heKZeFYh2tTflr2WM=; b=rXATIlIZ/xYeX7D7GyT/0olLDyIj62H1p8y1j+FgG39V0szRpzISJNcb2B7UyMoJQC 60iD5QrC4WG4esbAlQugpB8GTXxCA04SEC5CTz+nUsUm2B5QCvKeKdEWTe3jtRnyXCQO 3og0pE7Mb29jgwkgQfpRkk1htXok2zqLsu1Ug2bphkYvVFnzmqoStCJpXPoEOWfABHXo xoQdnnW23tjqol14SkYF6/8g6+0lmI9sGIkOqTphc5CV4X89nFnE+DqM6rw8ant9HnrN fFITdcA1uJZMduOcmkMUo8ZTErgwb8eHsNCp3o9KEXLeakMLWfJIirgmK8LQ07EIN8ZR l/bw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XjRnqVf9ss6bC6TGUHLewZ86D8heKZeFYh2tTflr2WM=; b=pE36SbxzMYOnXkwzDMBgwdkDQ18T9mepPmnWf4mi4cdoOBkalcPBw77TQqkeYi/u4b wkVS2jRRo/WJqCLWSpr8ngDxViA12DqaYqq4+WyvC0aJ7y6J/Tce3M/u4IzVo56HWQNJ HZR27KeZrJEe8nty++5pxedzYdJqzFsIDkcsFIip6ijTB2mhg6WFaWWy5guu6VSDe54Q T6Iji/l2k9D3dCHbbWRvlaZ8FfFLqWl8w3jUAAiuboMkr9LgBPzsBZSL0OPBrTD31cS1 8YRBonYkixVJ37HMTz4sRbZRfB1McRC8k2SzRocpoafL0oc81k4rUNAxZncFQM5i4Y1q Uoyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAURAiWQAu9haXIUw/E3JgEraPMAkiAf80YgoLN7/6ywIqTSM1QI ljoXthlnBaU7s4B/DBb3J3A+5ei8gQ+WtzUehaLI+jir
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzNS3DtYpjxd0JzXU/4nc4XXKjOHE2Pmoldh47EiG1VxRdNX46f72msH8D0KM27UI1EplySvHlYnfSK64ELyUk=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8696:: with SMTP id l22mr811019lji.201.1563810709529; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:51:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmW4ihZDEYacNbOxMc3ZvFWKTT5X-UkHUCwLgKLiZtP4pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Followup on my comments
To: draft-liu-ican@ietf.org, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d66955058e470ddd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/2k24emIxhpMJHRx4LggrZtfHCZ4>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:51:57 -0000
Dear Authors, et al., to summarize my comments at the mike: - BFD WG will discuss possible extensions to BFD proposed in draft-mirmin-bfd-extended <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirmin-bfd-extended-01>. Appreciate your comments to the potential use of the proposed ideas for iCAN. - It is my understanding that iCAN enables transient nodes to measure Residence time as defined in Section 2 RFC 8169 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8169#section-2>. Is my understanding of iCAN correct? - in section 4.4 of draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-08> we discuss how the Alternate Marking method can be used to measure the Residence Time for an SFF and/or an SF. That can be extended to other overlay and underlay networks. Regards, Greg
- Followup on my comments Greg Mirsky