From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Apr 2 21:19:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18777 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 21:19:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9akn-00034Z-RK for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:19:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i332JPTJ011812 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 21:19:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9akn-00034R-M9 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:19:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18759 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 21:19:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9akl-0000yM-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:19:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B9ajp-0000qc-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:18:26 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9ajP-0000jn-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:17:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9ajQ-0002Rt-QW; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:18:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9aio-0002GY-Il for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:17:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18706 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 21:17:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9ail-0000id-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:17:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B9ahx-0000a5-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:16:30 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9ah5-0000RB-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:15:35 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B9ah5-000MJg-PF; Sat, 03 Apr 2004 02:15:35 +0000 Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:15:34 -0800 From: Alex Zinin Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <113810280.20040402181534@psg.com> To: Pekka Savola CC: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG In-Reply-To: References: <1364500361.20040325130106@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pekka, Correct. I did not mean to exclude the router-to-router scenario for static links. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin/ Thursday, March 25, 2004, 10:55:14 PM, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Alex Zinin wrote: >> 3. Regarding the question of static routes and their applicability to the >> host-router scenarios. While I don't have a problem with using BFD for >> static route's next hop liveness detection, [...] > Just to make sure it's clear -- static routes are very much applicable > to router-router scenarios as well, practically between administrative > domains (or possibly stub networks). Such links are typically used in > a point-to-point fashion (i.e., even if the media was not p-t-p, there > are only two boxes on the link). > The difference with router-host scenarios is that there the link is > typically shared between the others, and is considered less secure. From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 8 21:05:08 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18242 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:05:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBkRk-0001JK-9G for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:04:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3914e7n005034 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:04:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBkRk-0001J7-2j for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:04:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18094 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBkRh-0007h6-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:04:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBkCj-0005Dn-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:49:12 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBjpc-0002Xv-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:25:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBjpa-0002iG-26; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:25:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBiu1-0005QD-8E for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:25:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08033 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:25:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBity-0004Rj-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:25:42 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBhmx-0003m2-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:14:25 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBfoU-00034K-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:07:51 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BBfam-00071q-Hf for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:53:40 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1BBfag-0009uw-LY; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:53:34 +0000 Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:53:34 -0700 From: Alex Zinin Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1431077483.20040408125334@psg.com> To: Alex Zinin CC: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG In-Reply-To: <113810280.20040402181534@psg.com> References: <1364500361.20040325130106@psg.com> <113810280.20040402181534@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks- A small update on where we are with this: 1. We found the second proposed co-chair: Jeff Hass agreed to help us. I'd also like to thank all other guys who offerred their help, we Do appreciate it! 2. We're currently working with the Dave and Jeff on the charter update. It is expected to show up on the list within a few days. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin/ From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 8 21:05:09 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18259 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:05:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBkRk-0001Jd-Sy for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:04:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3914eJX005053 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:04:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBkRk-0001JQ-LT for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:04:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18098 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:04:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBkRi-0007h9-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:04:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBkCk-0005E1-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:49:13 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBjpc-0002Xw-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:25:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBjpc-0002k5-Bv; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:25:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBiuL-0005Rd-9K for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:26:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08109 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBiuI-0004Ug-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:26:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBhnL-0003pz-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:14:49 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBfp9-00031M-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:08:31 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BBfY7-0006Mb-Fz for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:50:55 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1BBfY1-0008kb-50; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:50:49 +0000 Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:50:48 -0700 From: Alex Zinin Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1812741548.20040408125048@psg.com> To: Kaarthik Sivakumar CC: BFD Group Subject: Re: IPR on BFD In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Should have sent this e-mail long time ago, but better later than never. I asked the authors to make sure appropriate IPR statements are registered with the IETF secretary. Thanks. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin/ Tuesday, March 30, 2004, 9:52:17 AM, Kaarthik Sivakumar wrote: > Hi > The BFD draft says in the "IPR Notice" section that IETF has been > notified of a IPR claimed in the draft, but this notice is missing in > the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Notices" at > http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html. Can we get more information from the > authors on the IPR implications for BFD? Thanks. > kaarthik > This communication is confidential and intended solely for the > addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is > prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please > notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message > without disclosing it. Thank you. > E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, > interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send > and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such > corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences > thereof. From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 14 21:56:46 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10463 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDw29-0007wC-TW for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:51:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3F1pH1Y030506 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:51:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDw1b-0007ir-9P for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:50:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10292 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDw1Y-0005Sm-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:50:40 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDw0Z-0005QF-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:49:40 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDvzc-0005N2-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:48:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDvx2-0006QN-La; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:46:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDvuq-0005oD-Tm for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:43:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10083 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDvuo-00056E-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:43:42 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDvtp-00053Q-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:42:42 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDvsv-0004zt-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:41:45 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1BDvss-0005do-HF; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:41:42 +0000 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:41:41 -0700 From: Alex Zinin Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <486780549.20040414184141@psg.com> To: Russ White CC: Rahul Aggarwal , rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD WG charter In-Reply-To: References: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> > Nov 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for Ethernet to the >> > IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard > Again, I'm not certain why this work wouldn't fall within the IEEE's > domain? I'm concerned about this too, actually... Defining a standard on how to control Ethernet switches (including with BFD) is not an IETF task. The only way I could see us doing something related is documenting how the BFD framework defined in the IETF could be used in switched Ethernet environment as an INFO RFC, and documenting the encapsulation. Alex From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 14 22:08:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10808 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDwHj-0002e9-QG for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:07:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3F27Nr8010162 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:07:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDwBK-0001IS-RO for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:00:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10553 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDwBH-0005uR-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:00:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDwAK-0005rj-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:59:45 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDw9k-0005pj-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:59:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDw7g-0000Wr-PU; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:57:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDw3c-000851-9f for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:52:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10361 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDw3Z-0005Yh-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:52:45 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDw2a-0005W2-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:51:44 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDw1p-0005Tv-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:50:57 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1BDw1l-0008CK-R6; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:50:53 +0000 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:50:52 -0700 From: Alex Zinin Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1681937723.20040414185052@psg.com> To: Russ White CC: Dave Katz , Kaarthik Sivakumar , Rahul Aggarwal , Subject: Re: BFD WG charter In-Reply-To: References: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> <41063AFB-7EA9-11D8-9FF3-000A95A55D88@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> > How about addressing multi-hop BFD operations for iBGP (and eBGP >> > multihop)? Is there a specific reason why multi-hop for iBGP and OSPF >> > VLs are not considered? (I am a little late in this game, so I dont >> > know all the issues yet; just trying a getting a feel for things >> > here). >> >> Aside from the crawl-before-you-walk aspect, the security issue has to be >> dealt with before multihop can be used. > I would also be concerned about false positives in the multihop cases--how > would we actually handle these? In other words, we'll be taking neighbors > down while the network reconverges under BFD. > Isn't this something that should be considered? Or will we assume that all > networks behave perfectly, and the BGD hello's will only fail when the link > is gone forever? Yes, this aspect will certainly need to be considered. We discussed it a bit with Dave and Jeff a few days ago. I think if folks still find multi-hop useful, timing considerations (don't configure a multi-hop BFD adjacency to go down faster than the worst case convergence scenario) need to be spelled out at least in the applicability statement. Some guidance in the spec would also be useful, it seems. Alex From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 15 14:05:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09950 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BEB45-0002uR-3S for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3FHsHaO011183 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BEAyR-0001Ea-Sj for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:48:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08576 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BEAyP-0004U6-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:48:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BEAxR-0004OS-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:47:26 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BEAwr-0004Jc-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:46:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BEApJ-0007jj-9c; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BEAdF-0004Lm-OF for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:26:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06706 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BEAdD-0002Q6-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:26:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BEAcP-0002L4-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:25:41 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BEAbt-0002EI-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:25:09 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i3FHOMBm054237; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:24:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) Received: from [10.16.35.199] ([172.24.236.11]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i3FHOMJ12498; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:24:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) In-Reply-To: <1681937723.20040414185052@psg.com> References: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> <41063AFB-7EA9-11D8-9FF3-000A95A55D88@juniper.net> <1681937723.20040414185052@psg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Russ White , Kaarthik Sivakumar , Rahul Aggarwal , From: Dave Katz Subject: Re: BFD WG charter Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:24:20 -0700 To: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Apr 14, 2004, at 6:50 PM, Alex Zinin wrote: >>>> How about addressing multi-hop BFD operations for iBGP (and eBGP >>>> multihop)? Is there a specific reason why multi-hop for iBGP and >>>> OSPF >>>> VLs are not considered? (I am a little late in this game, so I dont >>>> know all the issues yet; just trying a getting a feel for things >>>> here). >>> >>> Aside from the crawl-before-you-walk aspect, the security issue has >>> to be >>> dealt with before multihop can be used. > >> I would also be concerned about false positives in the multihop >> cases--how >> would we actually handle these? In other words, we'll be taking >> neighbors >> down while the network reconverges under BFD. > >> Isn't this something that should be considered? Or will we assume >> that all >> networks behave perfectly, and the BGD hello's will only fail when >> the link >> is gone forever? > > Yes, this aspect will certainly need to be considered. We discussed it > a bit > with Dave and Jeff a few days ago. I think if folks still find > multi-hop useful, > timing considerations (don't configure a multi-hop BFD adjacency to go > down > faster than the worst case convergence scenario) need to be spelled > out at least > in the applicability statement. Some guidance in the spec would also > be useful, > it seems. There's no magic here; if the path latency exceeds the detection time, then the session will go down. The solution, which is true of any path whether it be single or multi hop, is to use timing sufficient to tolerate the path latencies. This is no different than any other similar protocol (OSPF VLs, for example) except for a major advantage, which is that BFD timing is not fixed. Given the facilities of the protocol, a halfway intelligent implementation should provide stability in spite of configuration attempts to the contrary. I'm not sure what guidance to provide in the spec, besides "if it hurts, don't do that." > > Alex > > From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 20 15:54:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18514 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:54:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BG1FK-0004f3-84 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:49:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3KJnU7k017913 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:49:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BG15M-0000DU-0W for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:39:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16932 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:39:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BG15K-00040L-Hp for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:39:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BG14S-0003ws-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:38:17 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BG13c-0003tn-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:37:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BG0va-0004SI-P4; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:29:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BG0aa-0000PV-HZ for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:07:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13943 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BG0aX-0001Tt-LA for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:07:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BG0Zd-0001Pr-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:06:26 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BG0Ys-0001MO-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:05:38 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1BG0Ys-000AmH-IS for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:05:38 +0000 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:05:38 -0700 From: Alex Zinin Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1481457737.20040420120538@psg.com> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: BFD charter rev 2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks- Rev 2 of the charter is below. The html-diff is available at: http://www.psg.com/~zinin/ietf/bfd-charter-00-01-diff.html Please send your comments by April 27, 2004. -- Alex Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Current Status: Proposed Working Group Chairs (tentative): David Ward Jeff Haas Routing Area Directors: Bill Fenner Alex Zinin Routing Area Advisor: Alex Zinin Technical Advisor: Dave Katz Mailing Lists: General Discussion: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Send mail to: rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org With a subject line: subscribe Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/rtg-bfd-wg Description of Working Group: The BFD Working Group is chartered to specify a protocol for bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD), as well as extensions to be used within the scope of BFD and IP routing, in a way that will encourage multiple, inter-operable vendor implementations. BFD is a protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding engines themselves, with potentially very low latency. It operates independently of media, data protocols, and routing protocols. An additional goal is to provide a single mechanism that can be used for liveness detection over any media, at any protocol layer, with a wide range of detection times and overhead, to avoid a proliferation of different methods. Important characteristics of BFD include: - Simple, fixed-field encoding to facilitate implementations in hardware - Independence of the data protocol being forwarded between two systems. BFD packets are carried as the payload of whatever encapsulating protocol is appropriate for the medium and network. - Path independence: BFD can provide failure detection on any kind of path between systems, including direct physical links, virtual circuits, tunnels, MPLS LSPs, multihop routed paths, and unidirectional links (so long as there is some return path, of course.) - Ability to be bootstrapped by any other protocol that automatically forms peer, neighbor or adjacency relationships to seed BFD endpoint discovery. At this time the WG is chartered to complete the following work items (additional items will require rechartering): 1. Develop the base BFD protocol specification and submit it to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard 2. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 and IPv6 adjacencies (e.g, physical links and IP/GRE tunnels for static routes, IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, single-hop BGP) and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. 3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. 4. Develop the MIB module for BFD and submit it to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. 5. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for multi-hop IPv4 and IPv6 adjacencies (e.g. OSPF virtual links and iBGP sessiosn) and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. Topics for Possible Future Work: 1. Document BFD directly over 802.3 Goals and Milestones: Aug 04 Submit the base protocol specification to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard. Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 and IPv6 adjacencies to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard Nov 04 Submit BFD MIB to the IESG to be considered as Proposed Standard. Feb 05 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for multi-hop IPv4 and IPv6 adjacencies to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard Internet-Drafts (to be WG items): draft-katz-ward-bfd-01.txt draft-katz-ward-bfd-v4v6-1hop-00.txt draft-raggarwa-mpls-bfd-00.txt draft-nadeau-bfd-mib-00.txt From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 21 01:41:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26673 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGAPq-0006id-6T for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:36:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3L5aw04025819 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:36:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGAGP-0002kr-Fx for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:27:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25718 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGAGL-00066A-6F for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:27:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGAFH-0005tK-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:26:04 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGAE0-0005e4-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:24:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGA6X-0006JW-I1; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGA3E-0005DO-5S for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:13:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA24465 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGA3B-0004Gp-2d for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:13:33 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGA2G-0004Bk-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:12:37 -0400 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGA1o-00045s-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:12:08 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3L5BWg09848; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:11:32 +0300 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:11:32 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Alex Zinin cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD charter rev 2 In-Reply-To: <1481457737.20040420120538@psg.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Alex Zinin wrote: > Rev 2 of the charter is below. The html-diff is available at: > http://www.psg.com/~zinin/ietf/bfd-charter-00-01-diff.html > > Please send your comments by April 27, 2004. I'd restrict the scope of the initial charter more, i.e., move action item 5 under "Topics for Possible Future Work". It's more important to finish the "easy" cases first. It might also be appropriate to consider Experimental for multihop usage profile, as I'm guessing that it has a number of issues with security, but PS is fine as well. I'd just prefer that we'd consciously postpone that until we are done with the critical and relatively easy work. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 22 12:57:03 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10186 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:57:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGhOT-0000ri-V2 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:49:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3MGnjMD003326 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:49:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGhCQ-0004Tl-8X for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:37:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09121 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGhCM-0002Sl-Fa for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:37:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGhBP-00029l-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:36:15 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGhAO-0001sM-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:35:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGh3R-0001ci-PK; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGggL-0001ek-8e for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:04:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07613 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGggH-0001AP-Dv for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:04:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGgfL-0000u4-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:03:08 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGgeN-0000OJ-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:02:07 -0400 Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i3MG1VW9005439; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (che-vpn-cluster-1-23.cisco.com [10.86.240.23]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AHU32943; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:01:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: BFD charter rev 2 From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" Reply-To: tnadeau@cisco.com To: Alex Zinin Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1481457737.20040420120538@psg.com> References: <1481457737.20040420120538@psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc. Message-Id: <1082649678.7667.128.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 22 Apr 2004 12:01:18 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A few points: 1) I would change the following The BFD Working Group is chartered to specify a protocol for bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD), as well as extensions to be used within the scope of BFD and IP routing, in a way that will encourage multiple, inter-operable vendor implementations. to the following because later in the charter you explicitly spell out MPLS. The BFD Working Group is chartered to specify a protocol for bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD), as well as extensions to be used within the scope of BFD, IP routing, or protocols such as MPLS that are based on IP routing. 2) I would change the following: BFD is a protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding engines themselves, with potentially very low latency. To: BFD is a protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path or paths between two forwarding engines, including physical interfaces, sub-interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible, the forwarding engines themselves, with potentially very low latency and low resource overhead. 3) I am concerned over the following statement, "It operates independently of media, data protocols, and routing protocols." given that the first part of the charter explains that it be used within the scope of BGP/IP routing only, "The BFD Working Group is chartered to specify a protocol for bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD), as well as extensions to be used within the scope of BFD and IP routing, in a way that will encourage multiple, inter-operable vendor implementations." Similarly, the following seems to contradict the scoping statement as well, "An additional goal is to provide a single mechanism that can be used for liveness detection over any media, at any protocol layer, with a wide range of detection times and overhead, to avoid a proliferation of different methods." It would seem better to either widen the scoping restriction or to narrow the Topics for Possible Future Work: 1. Document BFD directly over 802.3scope of the paragraphs pointed out above. 4) I have a question about the following: 4. Develop the MIB module for BFD and submit it to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. Does the WG and AD's care whether this MIB contains configuration, statistics and is capable of read-write operation? In particular, theTopics for Possible Future Work: 1. Document BFD directly over 802.3 read-write portion can significantly complicate matters. 5) I would modify the following: Topics for Possible Future Work: 1. Document BFD directly over 802.3 To: Topics for Possible Future Work: 1. Document BFD directly over 802.3 in close collaboration and synchronization with the IEEE. --Tom From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 22 19:33:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12562 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGneJ-0005tl-5a for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:30:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3MNUVx4022668 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:30:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGnPh-0001Qc-9U for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:15:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11611 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGnPd-0002As-OQ for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:15:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGnOg-0001tG-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:14:22 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGnNk-0001aX-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:13:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGnFi-0005uq-EJ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:05:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGnBD-0003bR-Pm for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:00:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10127 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:00:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGnB8-0005Ov-HC for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:00:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGnAE-000583-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:59:27 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGn9n-0004rm-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:58:59 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i3MMwUBm099840; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:58:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) Received: from [172.16.12.139] (nimbus-sf.juniper.net [172.16.12.139]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i3MMwTJ65601; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:58:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <9188B47B-94B0-11D8-8F5C-000A95A55D88@juniper.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Zinin , rtg-bfd@ietf.org From: Dave Katz Subject: Re: BFD charter rev 2 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:58:28 -0700 To: Pekka Savola X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Apr 20, 2004, at 10:11 PM, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Alex Zinin wrote: >> Rev 2 of the charter is below. The html-diff is available at: >> http://www.psg.com/~zinin/ietf/bfd-charter-00-01-diff.html >> >> Please send your comments by April 27, 2004. > > I'd restrict the scope of the initial charter more, i.e., move action > item 5 under "Topics for Possible Future Work". > > It's more important to finish the "easy" cases first. Multihop will be required for MPLS (since the return path may not be an LSP, and perhaps arguably should not be) so other multihop applications would more or less fall out of that for free. Security is required for multihop, so that pretty much means that the whole ball of wax has to be done for MPLS. This is the meat of the technical work remaining to be done, in any case. --Dave > > It might also be appropriate to consider Experimental for multihop > usage profile, as I'm guessing that it has a number of issues with > security, but PS is fine as well. I'd just prefer that we'd > consciously postpone that until we are done with the critical and > relatively easy work. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > > > From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 22 23:42:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24771 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGrTq-0007bu-GQ for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:35:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3N3ZwsJ029254 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:35:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGrLz-0005PW-Ca for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:27:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24152 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGrLv-0007QH-AT for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:27:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGrKv-00078k-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:26:46 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGrK4-0006rY-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:25:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGrHJ-0003qs-W1; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGr3N-0007nK-RF for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:08:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23244 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGr3H-0002J0-0q for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:08:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGr0x-0001od-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:06:09 -0400 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGqzS-0001FX-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:04:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954CC2D4867 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20588-02-2 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486112D4826 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id i3N33lp02664 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:03:47 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD charter rev 2 Message-ID: <20040422230347.A2639@nexthop.com> References: <9188B47B-94B0-11D8-8F5C-000A95A55D88@juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <9188B47B-94B0-11D8-8F5C-000A95A55D88@juniper.net>; from dkatz@juniper.net on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:58:28PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:58:28PM -0700, Dave Katz wrote: > Multihop will be required for MPLS (since the return path may not be an > LSP, and perhaps arguably should not be) so other multihop applications > would more or less fall out of that for free. Security is required for > multihop, so that pretty much means that the whole ball of wax has to > be done for MPLS. > > This is the meat of the technical work remaining to be done, in any > case. Plus, having this work item projected for Feb 2005 gives us time to work on the "easy" parts first. Presumably this would satisfy most of Pekka's concern of not unnecessarily distracting the WG from the parts that can come quicker. [Pekka] > > It might also be appropriate to consider Experimental for multihop > > usage profile, as I'm guessing that it has a number of issues with > > security, but PS is fine as well. I'd just prefer that we'd > > consciously postpone that until we are done with the critical and > > relatively easy work. Security is probably the most complicated piece here and potentially is a issue for the non-multihop case as well, even with GTSM-like behavior. There's also the issue about choosing appropriate times such that BFD interacts appropriately with the underlying IGP/signalling protocols. This problem also needs solved for LSPs. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Apr 23 00:27:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26732 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:27:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGsGh-0006IO-HT for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:26:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3N4QRwS024192 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:26:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGs6P-0003B1-Jy for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:15:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26238 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGs6L-0004nz-7q for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:15:45 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGs5K-0004WL-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:14:42 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGs4j-0004Fb-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:14:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGrzo-0000Lx-If; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:09:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGrpi-0005qQ-BB for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:58:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA25335 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGrpe-00008Z-1u for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:58:30 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGrog-0007gV-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:57:31 -0400 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGro0-0007CZ-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:56:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C6B2D486F for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21449-01-12 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036F32D482A for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id i3N3u9X02744 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:56:09 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD charter rev 2 Message-ID: <20040422235609.B2639@nexthop.com> References: <1481457737.20040420120538@psg.com> <1082649678.7667.128.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1082649678.7667.128.camel@localhost.localdomain>; from tnadeau@cisco.com on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 12:01:18PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 All in my personal opinion: On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 12:01:18PM -0400, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: > 1) > > I would change the following > [...] > to the following because later in the charter you > explicitly spell out MPLS. > > The BFD Working Group is chartered to specify a protocol for > bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD), as well as extensions to be > used within the scope of BFD, IP routing, or protocols > such as MPLS that are based on IP routing. This seems reasonable. > 2) > To: > > BFD is a protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path > or paths between two forwarding engines, including physical interfaces, > sub-interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible, the forwarding > engines themselves, with potentially very low latency and low resource > overhead. While sub-interfaces makes some sense to call out, do we really wish to add "paths" here? While I can easily see the desire to verify bidirectional reachability of each path I can also see it being an issue that creates a lot of additional complexity. > 3) > > I am concerned over the following statement, > > "It operates independently of media, data protocols, and routing > protocols." > > given that the first part of the charter explains that it be used > within the scope of BGP/IP routing only, > > "The BFD Working Group is chartered to specify a protocol for > bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD), as well as extensions to be > used within the scope of BFD and IP routing, in a way that will > encourage multiple, inter-operable vendor implementations." I believe the key words in the above paragraph are "as well as", which implies to me that "we're specifying the BFD protocol PLUS extensions". Any suggestions on how to tidy this up a bit? > Does the WG and AD's care whether this MIB contains > configuration, statistics and is capable of read-write operation? I'm also interested in the general opinion given my work on the BGP MIBs and the otherwise resounding silence on such matters. :-) > Topics for Possible Future Work: > > 1. Document BFD directly over 802.3 in close collaboration > and synchronization with the IEEE. Complete with triple-secret handshake. :-) -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 29 13:57:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17098 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJFej-0006XU-Vs for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:49:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3THn5v2025135 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:49:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJFZL-0003jm-1e for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:43:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15873 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:43:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BJFZF-0004qA-Hh for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:43:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BJFYJ-0004Xb-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:42:27 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BJFXN-0004Ed-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:41:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJFFZ-0006yF-Cq; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:23:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJEeA-00074m-Jv for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:44:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13350 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:44:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BJEe5-0004Zf-LR for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:44:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BJEdB-0004Jr-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:43:26 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BJEcG-0003nj-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:42:28 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i3TGf6Bm029398; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:41:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) Received: from [172.16.12.13] (nimbus-sc.juniper.net [172.16.12.13]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i3TGf6J69452; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:41:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) In-Reply-To: <20040429152204.0AE497FC4B2@silverstreak> References: <20040429152204.0AE497FC4B2@silverstreak> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <01E02780-99FC-11D8-89AB-000A95A55D88@juniper.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, dward@cisco.com From: Dave Katz Subject: Re: BFD Comments Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:41:04 -0700 To: erik.sherk@mci.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (Copied to the list) On Apr 29, 2004, at 8:22 AM, Erik Sherk wrote: > > Section 6.5.6 > Eighth 'If' > s/session MUST selected/session MUST be selected/ Thanks, noted. > > I don't understand why "If a Poll Sequence is being transmitted by the > local > system, the Poll Sequence MUST be terminated". Is this discussed > somewhere > in the draft? It's an optimization, but it turns out to be a wrongheaded one (as many optimizations turn out to be; see OSPF .) The idea was to terminate a poll sequence as soon as control traffic was seen from the other side, but this could cause a parameter change to go unnoticed. I'll change it to require the F bit before terminating. > I though I had more comments, but looking at my hand writen comments > again, > they are just notes to myself. Are you going to address more of the > security > issues? Or is that more application dependant? The security hooks will be added to the base spec (in a backward compatible manner) in conjunction with multihop applications such as unidirectional links and LSPs (as the return path may not be a single hop.) The security hooks will also be usable in the single hop case, though we don't want to require it due to performance concerns. --Dave