Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-intervals IANA considerations?

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:19:38 -0400

WG,

> Authors of draft-ietf-bfd-intervals have discussed and concluded that
> defined "common intervals set" does _not_ need to be maintained by IANA.
> 
> Reasons:
> 1. Document is an informational draft.
> 2. Additions of interval(s) in the "common intervals set" should anyways be
> done through a new draft, whether or not draft-ietf-bfd-intervals creates an
> IANA registry and defines allocation policies for it.
> 
> Do you agree with this?
> Do you see any concern with this?
> 
> Seeking opinions/comments from folks on this matter.

After seeking WG commentary, my conclusion is that there's no strong
consensus to create an IANA registry at this time.  If, at a later time,
additional documents give rise to a need for such a registry, we can do the
work at that time.

Consulting with our Area Director, Adrian, about this, he concurs that it's
okay.  He does suggest the authors add a short sentence or two to the
document about the reasoning.  (Effectively, "here's why we have no IANA
considerations...")

I would also note that there's been relatively little other commentary about
the suggested timings in the draft.  While the submitted milestone to our AD
was January 2015, there may cause to declare sufficient consensus to do a
WGLC for the upcoming IETF session.  Thus, please review your
implementations against the recommended timing intervals and provide
commentary to this I-D.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:12:46 +0000

Hi Jeff,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:20 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-intervals IANA considerations?
> 
> WG,
> 
> > 2. Additions of interval(s) in the "common intervals set" should
> > anyways be done through a new draft, whether or not
> > draft-ietf-bfd-intervals creates an IANA registry and defines allocation
> policies for it.
> >
> > Do you agree with this?

Sounds like a reasonable approach.

> document about the reasoning.  (Effectively, "here's why we have no IANA

We (authors) will keep the "here's why" very short, but I'd like to take this opportunity to say thanks for all who have chimed in: thanks Sasha, Carlos, Greg, Jeff, Donald! We will include this text in the next revision.

> the suggested timings in the draft.  While the submitted milestone to our
> AD was January 2015, there may cause to declare sufficient consensus to do
> a WGLC for the upcoming IETF session.  Thus, please review your

Agree.

-Nobo

---

From: Marc Binderberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:24:10 -0700

Hello Jeff, Nobo et al.,

thanks for this summarization and thanks for the discussion I have seen. My 
apology for being silent although being one of the authors; was caught in 
last minute (more last weeks) activities for code shipment.

There is one aspect I would like to comment. 

> And one must admit the whole point of such a draft in the first place is to
> give users a way to say "this is a common value, do you support it?"

True. But this should not be seen in a negative way. I see it in first place 
as a synchronization of the BFD implementors, both vendor and network 
designers. There should be an understanding on both sides that the common 
interval list is informal. I do expect some implementations to be not "100% 
compliant" (*) and still it serves a purpose to minimize the drift from 
desired interval to the negotiated interval. Minimizing this drift is a main 
motivation.

This is also the reason why the list is larger than some may expect, it 
offers anchor intervals for de-facto, legacy common values, values borrowed 
from Y.1731, some must-have values like 3.3msec and 1sec. This isn't exact 
science, it's heuristic :-) and I hope we found a reasonable balance.

Regards, Marc

(*: even some implementation of my company won't be 100%. We'll fix it in the 
future)

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:12:46 +0000, Nobo Akiya (nobo) wrote:
> We (authors) will keep the "here's why" very short, but I'd like to take 
> this opportunity to say thanks for all who have chimed in: thanks Sasha, 
> Carlos, Greg, Jeff, Donald! We will include this text in the next revision.
> 
>>