From jhaas@slice.pfrc.org Sun Jun 5 17:57:46 2011 Return-Path: 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 D86FF11E8084 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 17:57:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6yErY5xfR8Ca for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 17:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7543D11E807A for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 17:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 645262240EB; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 01:00:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 01:00:10 +0000 From: Jeffrey Haas To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Time for a recharter Message-ID: <20110606010010.GH6269@slice> References: <20110507133545.GB17459@slice> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110507133545.GB17459@slice> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:57:47 -0000 On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 01:35:45PM +0000, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Working Group, > > As our ADs have reminded us, we're in need of a re-charter for the > working group. Based on the minutes from our last session and some items > the chairs have been approached about, please find a possible draft > charter > for discussion. Note that milestones have yet to be determined. [...] Since the original mail, we've seen a few (very few) mails supporting the proposed re-charter and none against. The majority of the chat was around a possible new work item not on the proposed charter to use BFD for ECMP/LAG interfaces. There were email exchanges on and off list on the topic. One observation made in one of those off-list changes is that it is likely that no BFD protocol changes are necessary to provide support for use of BFD on ECMP or LAGs. There is, however, room for informational drafts on bootstrapping BFD for such an application. My proposal is that we do NOT add such an informational draft to the proposed charter at this time until we better define what the requirements for such a solution are and the general shape of that solution. Once a draft has been been brought to the working group, we can consider adding it to the charter at that time. -- Jeff From manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com Sun Jun 5 19:57:51 2011 Return-Path: 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 1473A22800F for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 19:57:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JpwzzKtbRuVI for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 19:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2C2228009 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 19:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p562vj2m022492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 5 Jun 2011 21:57:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub01.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.32]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p562vhGq016905 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:27:44 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.59]) by INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.32]) with mapi; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:27:43 +0530 From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" To: Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:27:40 +0530 Subject: RE: Time for a recharter Thread-Topic: Time for a recharter Thread-Index: Acwj5MIZX7TRhACeTbeaywaGVlpEFAAEH5eQ Message-ID: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350CFE6B7316@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <20110507133545.GB17459@slice> <20110606010010.GH6269@slice> In-Reply-To: <20110606010010.GH6269@slice> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:57:51 -0000 Jeff, I presume that this means that enhanced security mechanisms would be taken = up as part of the WG re-charter. Cheers, Manav=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org=20 > [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 6.30 AM > To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Time for a recharter >=20 > On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 01:35:45PM +0000, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > Working Group, > > > > As our ADs have reminded us, we're in need of a re-charter for the > > working group. Based on the minutes from our last session=20 > and some items > > the chairs have been approached about, please find a possible draft > > charter > > for discussion. Note that milestones have yet to be determined. > [...] >=20 > Since the original mail, we've seen a few (very few) mails=20 > supporting the > proposed re-charter and none against. >=20 > The majority of the chat was around a possible new work item=20 > not on the > proposed charter to use BFD for ECMP/LAG interfaces. There were email > exchanges on and off list on the topic. >=20 > One observation made in one of those off-list changes is that=20 > it is likely > that no BFD protocol changes are necessary to provide support=20 > for use of > BFD on ECMP or LAGs. There is, however, room for=20 > informational drafts on > bootstrapping BFD for such an application. >=20 > My proposal is that we do NOT add such an informational draft to the > proposed charter at this time until we better define what the=20 > requirements > for such a solution are and the general shape of that=20 > solution. Once a > draft has been been brought to the working group, we can=20 > consider adding it > to the charter at that time. >=20 > -- Jeff >=20 > =