Subject: Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection

From: Konrad Iwanicki <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 11:57:32 +0200

Dear Michael, Pascall, and all,

Hopefully, I have addressed all your previous comments (at least those 
that I knew how to address). The changes are in the GitHub repo. My 
question is:

     What now?

Despite the introductory videos, it is not completely clear to me what 
the next steps should be.

Moreover, before a new version of the draft is produced, if at all, I 
would like to discuss a few issues so that the draft best matches the 
group's practices, both technical and nontechnical:

1. best method for enabling/disabling the protocol
2. simplicity vs. generality and reusability
3. authorship of the draft

Best,
-- 
- Konrad Iwanicki.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 11:46:08 -0400

> the next steps should be.

A few illustrative slides for a virtual interim meeting, and then pester the
WG chairs to adopt it.   I would support adoption, and I prefer that
documents are adopted early.  (not everyone shares this view, see RFC7221 and rfc7221bis)

    > 1. best method for enabling/disabling the protocol

Can it use capex?

    > 2. simplicity vs. generality and reusability

I'd need some examples here.

    > 3. authorship of the draft

The WG chairs essentially decide that, but it is unusual for them not to
consult with you.
(Most of the time, it's whomever fails to step back fast enough.)

BTW: to everyone, a bunch of clusters of documents in 6tisch and ANIMA have
     gotten to AUTH48 in the RFC editing process, and this tends to act as a
     Denial of Service on a bunch of people in this WG.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Konrad Iwanicki <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 12:47:33 +0200

Hi Michael,

> documents are adopted early.  (not everyone shares this view, see RFC7221 and rfc7221bis)

Thanks a lot for the explanation. I will thus prepare the slides for the 
meeting.

>     > 1. best method for enabling/disabling the protocol

Thanks for the pointer. I will think whether and how CapEx could be used 
to this end.

> I'd need some examples here.

One of the reasons for the question is that CFRCs in the current RNFD 
option have a specific format (linear counting). However, one could 
think of allowing different CFRC algorithms in the option, even though, 
based on our experiments with such algorithms, I don't believe this to 
be terribly relevant. Moreover, this would make the protocol more 
complex, which I would like to avoid. Nevertheless, I wanted to ask if 
you have any preferences in this respect.

> (Most of the time, it's whomever fails to step back fast enough.)

Great. Hope that the chairs will value your and Pascal's contribution.

Best,
-- 
- Konrad Iwanicki.