Subject: Re: The "version" topic (was: Reserved discriminators?)

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 08:21:29 -0400

[With my chair hat on]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 06:51:54PM +0000, Shahram Davari wrote:
> Before going any further I suggest whoever is proposing this to write a
> requirements drafts so that we can better evaluate what is needed and why
> it is required. The next step after that is to evaluate the solutions. May
> be just a single flag in the header is all that is required or may be a
> new version is needed.

Any significant changes to the protocol warranting a new version will almost
certainly have to be driven from a well understood set of requirements.  If
documenting those requirements results in a draft, that's great.  

One of the details that must be covered in such requirements is something
very fundamental to BFD:
What information are you trying to signal at millisecond granularity that
you're expecting to be acted upon in the course of one or two packets?

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 08:52:11 -0400

[And now, speaking as an individual contributor.]

> you're expecting to be acted upon in the course of one or two packets?

And let us recall that at some points of a BFD session's life that not
everything is that fast.  I.e. Down and Init. 

-- Jeff