From nobody Tue Sep 2 10:27:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C9C1A8742; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:27:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AojuwXDMyYHD; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B10E1A877B; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:26:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-04.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p5 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140902172659.10193.67583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:26:59 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/UJl5FWZsndsLggfJHrYPpPOhlWc Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 17:27:04 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Working Group of the IETF. Title : Common Interval Support in Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Authors : Nobo Akiya Marc Binderberger Greg Mirsky Filename : draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-04.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2014-09-02 Abstract: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) requires that messages are transmitted at regular intervals and provides a way to negotiate the interval used by BFD peers. Some BFD implementations may be restricted to only support several interval values. When such BFD implementations speak to each other, there is a possibility of two sides not being able to find a common value for the interval to run BFD sessions. This document defines a small set of interval values for BFD that we call "Common Intervals", and recommends implementations to support the defined intervals. This solves the problem of finding an interval value that both BFD speakers can support while allowing a simplified implementation as seen for hardware-based BFD. It does not restrict an implementation from supporting more intervals in addition to the Common Intervals. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-intervals/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Sep 2 18:51:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB5891A894E for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:51:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.836 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.836 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uKibvkH05kUV for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA101A894D for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C6CFBC259; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 21:51:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 21:51:09 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Message-ID: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/wK2Bv61939e4nk3BbfozEVBsuXk X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 01:51:11 -0000 The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group adoption of their draft. Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already approved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the poll to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be adopted. Adoption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are requesting deeper involvement from the Working Group. Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, I suspect this won't be an issue. Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. -- Jeff From nobody Tue Sep 2 22:04:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F4B1A8A0C for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:04:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.218 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UZ94U2EzvBu7 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from door.sniff.de (door.sniff.de [IPv6:2001:6f8:94f:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E2D1A89F5 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.sniff.de [127.0.0.1]) by door.sniff.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2AF2AA0F; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 05:04:00 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:04:14 -0700 From: Marc Binderberger To: Jeffrey Haas Message-ID: <20140902220414710992.bfd19183@sniff.de> In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Subject: Re: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: GyazMail version 1.5.15 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/rCyyArEhglJ2YCyVvR5l97cWOjM Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 05:04:05 -0000 Hello Jeff and BFD experts, I support the adaption of the document as a workgroup draft. Regards,Marc On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 21:51:09 -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group > adoption of their draft. > > Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already > approved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the > poll to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be > adopted. Adoption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are > requesting deeper involvement from the Working Group. > > Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, I > suspect this won't be an issue. > > Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. > > -- Jeff > From nobody Tue Sep 2 22:38:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47D31A6FDA for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:38:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rb7NyYAFPoDI for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E8791A6FD9 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:38:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3689; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409722707; x=1410932307; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=g4PK+1NpfMo5QVdlMTLwdaqpUXqUiBTuQ7YYPTgwxFU=; b=S14HTGBuvhRu7KWcEMy7U+yKmAW0yiMQE+/XNHDMg+yF2i7/tMXnZ3ZL E0XBODHZDHPhPDLSI380D/9/P94sSUaHilG7CPGu3wJR/RsdYmQ9NxT58 TPT9NEnfl5XtKGpRmEkCrAckWZJW7md5+CSr5rUdfhtwvb6uUDts21qZg 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFABeoBlStJA2B/2dsb2JhbABagkdGgSoE0DEBgQsWd4QDAQIEHW4BCAQKAwMBAigmExQJCAIEARKIQr0wARePPBiETAWPHYIUA4solR6DYWyBSIEHAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,455,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="74445224" Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2014 05:38:26 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s835cPFB006767 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 05:38:25 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.15.163]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 00:38:25 -0500 From: "MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" To: Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: Re: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Topic: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Index: AQHPxxmOVYFtBrVyAUeJM8ZOac5CT5vvlGAA Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 05:38:24 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.143.25.182] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D02CA70725135mmudigonciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Ux5WDVKJpfjSX46lIFp54OSQB6c X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 05:38:28 -0000 --_000_D02CA70725135mmudigonciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I support the adoption as working group document Thanks Regards Mallik From: Jeffrey Haas > Date: Wednesday 3 September 2014 7:21 AM To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" > Subject: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group adoption of their draft. Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already approved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the poll to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be adopted. Adoption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are requesting deeper involvement from the Working Group. Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, I suspect this won't be an issue. Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. -- Jeff --_000_D02CA70725135mmudigonciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

I support the adoption as working group document

Thanks

Regards
Mallik

From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Date: Wednesday 3 September 2014 7:= 21 AM
To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Call for adoption for draf= t-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip

The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Grou= p
adoption of their draft.  

Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already<= /div>
approved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite.  G= iven this, the
poll to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be
adopted.  Adoption does not imply perfection, merely that th= e authors are
requesting deeper involvement from the Working Group.

Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adopti= on, I
suspect this won't be an issue.

Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12.

-- Jeff


--_000_D02CA70725135mmudigonciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Sep 2 22:43:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D59C1A6FDD for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:43:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CjIoaJ5Hu9sy for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CA391A6FDB for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id et14so16570884pad.16 for ; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:43:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=7/l8BU97xE5UxkERWISaYYlovKGij06n7fcIarVrYT0=; b=zTG5xNvw9EKS/AUTr8yhVA9zQHi2ZH5vSGagqyX31966FT/qXd9ESXBq1qReRvt3mY nVOWap2D9iq/dbJ5qlO18rwGjXV2AxSvIype6PKWS7bIz5ysAE6sLMCrrn/5R1qA2vN5 rUahS1dSI3Zl6dHGqSjUubHRTAnVal+cHnf6wtTy3fi/p4xLvQ0iNGQOwN+x4sfV0LgR i2sAgQ3WyeV/10Hxlm2RK5SSgsmJ/veZ5ICrsq/6ZZ/3oGfGVUwhE57N/dXGh5hp7KTc gNHGhNzwKhXv0KYT/9qircJ1T7HwKHiz3xWgVqwaW4wR14w4mMqirdNgjck+NOaMzBVL yc+w== X-Received: by 10.70.37.12 with SMTP id u12mr52551003pdj.79.1409723001096; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2002:6b03:9a3c:e472:c50:d2f2:851c:6a1f? ([2002:6b03:9a3c:e472:c50:d2f2:851c:6a1f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x1sm5698387pbt.65.2014.09.02.22.43.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:43:20 -0700 (PDT) References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <79FED817-6F9E-4942-8B1A-FC256A667CDF@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257) From: Sam Aldrin Subject: Re: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:43:17 -0700 To: Jeffrey Haas Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/KrWcnaPZDJwyqou2TbEOs9zY270 Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 05:43:22 -0000 Support it's adoption as WG doc. Sam Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 2, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group > adoption of their draft. > > Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already > approved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the > poll to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be > adopted. Adoption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are > requesting deeper involvement from the Working Group. > > Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, I > suspect this won't be an issue. > > Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. > > -- Jeff > From nobody Tue Sep 2 22:43:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97FA1A6FDD for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:43:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EL56KE2z40XI for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CA4A1A6FE8 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BIZ99381; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 05:43:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.41) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 06:43:43 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.57]) by SZXEMA409-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:43:40 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Topic: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Index: AQHPxxmOyIDYyIj/DEaLBuOSG0FA7Zvu5XIw Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 05:43:40 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.97.72] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/1znF5PxwnPKtQMrihuubBLVQUpQ X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 05:43:48 -0000 Hi Jeff, I read the draft and support to adopt it as a WG document. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:51 AM > To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip >=20 > The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group > adoption of their draft. >=20 > Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already app= roved as a > chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the poll to the = Working > Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be adopted. Adoption does = not > imply perfection, merely that the authors are requesting deeper involveme= nt > from the Working Group. >=20 > Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption,= I > suspect this won't be an issue. >=20 > Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. >=20 > -- Jeff From nobody Tue Sep 2 22:46:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58911A7003 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:46:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9EDx2ZXsmHPi for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x22d.google.com (mail-oa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4B9E1A6FDF for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id n16so5641328oag.32 for ; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:46:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=z8eRcvyqSjVx1kdcl5XkU1Z4gegAHA2wP5gseMZgBxI=; b=T/ghWbXj7gBl0zgmfeTyPcg6i50R7AdYdTKjhIVL4cANYAg7ps+/TrRt+6QpUfpPIu zOqpQ2NopnrFmIGXLERKN+hS1USPFOf3KVokKc+IifdFN1Arp3OqXciWOagt9/1e4lv2 9FcImPJNlqRdHLuFIbw66Ctvg25AceK4CM8TMI6ZFiOMIWV4ppsUZShLLvnEheRCjTyJ CgCrWOiMowf6kkk8Lh0D2m8ilSvlONK+cNcx+l1SR6f61bNfDHB3U+RrBKd7c8LTnYPn lz3zHDEAr0A+DInWMmutAIKu6Ix8fbRJHwHW46+YnzQ2Vud3/8dm5AOhD6IpyXJxQpHY MX2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.81.200 with SMTP id c8mr36410817oby.35.1409723195123; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.154.100 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:46:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 11:16:35 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip From: Manav Bhatia To: Jeffrey Haas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/-M_l_o7UCqqVJ0E59xD9VFXH1yU Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 05:46:36 -0000 Support ! On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group > adoption of their draft. > > Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already > approved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the > poll to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be > adopted. Adoption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are > requesting deeper involvement from the Working Group. > > Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, I > suspect this won't be an issue. > > Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. > > -- Jeff > From nobody Tue Sep 2 22:53:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67471A6FF1 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:53:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fwD-4MU3Zc1l for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:53:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 433C31A6FF0 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:53:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=784; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409723617; x=1410933217; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=aNjIUv6BDj5X60R7Gve3lbSSaI9LIWnURK2oEwllglQ=; b=CBnoWBSi0Kn2VD8DkUT6Dk0pCj6ORkjoL96QBpes48Se7uWA9b4l3vsY DBfIIDvueBWxn3MyAb+6+/xx0p1wf8hRyTwN71/Swa9vZaC963yLIU6/W Bkwx0F0jwzTVppmoEYTFVhcVL8hSF//YkYD4+Lg8mMFlgXzo+3VMW548P M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAJyrBlStJA2D/2dsb2JhbABagw2BKgTQMgGBDBZ3hAQBAQQdHU8CAQgOKBAyJQIEARKIQr1DARePVIRMAQSRMYsrlR6DYWyBSIEHAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,455,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="352109411" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2014 05:53:36 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s835ra1S030100 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 05:53:36 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.41]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 00:53:36 -0500 From: "Srihari Raghavan (srihari)" To: Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: Re: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Topic: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Index: AQHPxxmO/sv4C1rCq0q78xzYnR0CK5vvmJyA Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 05:53:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.143.26.210] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/11CA6N6Hogw22JH5-ZSotF5C6GI X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 05:53:38 -0000 Read through the draft. Support adoption. Thanks Srihari On 03/09/14 7:21 am, "Jeffrey Haas" wrote: >The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group >adoption of their draft. > >Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already >approved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the >poll to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be >adopted. Adoption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are >requesting deeper involvement from the Working Group. > >Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, >I >suspect this won't be an issue. > >Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. > >-- Jeff > From nobody Wed Sep 3 10:05:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682CD1A02BD for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:04:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VRLeT4KbBGe2 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78B8E1A02E4 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:04:31 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-3b-5406f4fb083f Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8C.C2.05330.BF4F6045; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:01:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:04:29 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Topic: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Index: AQHPxxmzOWk3mn0Dp0+9UdgSCWSVbZvu5LJw Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:04:28 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A2DC@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.9] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoO6fL2whBp9PcVnsP/iW1eLzn22M DkweS5b8ZPK43LuVNYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStjcdte1oKJHBUds1cxNjAeY+ti5OSQEDCR +LbzHpQtJnHh3nowW0jgKKNE3w2lLkYuIHsZo8THPaeZQBJsAkYSLzb2sIPYIgIeEt3HnjOC 2MICdhLf9j9jg4jbS3zd9h2qxkiiY/NCMJtFQEWi+fw+sDm8Ar4S0xc3sEIs05D4teUHM4jN KaApcfn0P7B6RqCDvp9aA1bPLCAucevJfCaIQwUkluw5zwxhi0q8fPyPFcJWlNjXP50dol5H YsHuT2wQtrbEsoWvmSH2CkqcnPmEZQKj6CwkY2chaZmFpGUWkpYFjCyrGDlKi1PLctONDDYx AqPhmASb7g7GPS8tDzEKcDAq8fAuYGULEWJNLCuuzD3EKM3BoiTOO6t2XrCQQHpiSWp2ampB alF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGRum89vffGx5E/Oy8u9Bi6qUVTR1nqma+XPZ9cf4CmRr3rZoHVa1j 42w9Niq533C/OHHbky+JB9kX2TeyKMyxmPnwD9cc57uXUj0P6vJVTA+pvDT1+famNbbC2T/2 eqlVdprzqvekrptykf/3rWNcxtYTD8aq7p7EbXruVeDPKQsfrb6grXD7fY4SS3FGoqEWc1Fx IgAhg1TrZwIAAA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/-ZzcSj58lWfoqTBrLv-OYJfyfaA X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 17:04:53 -0000 Hi, it is technically sound and well written document that helps us progress im= portant work. I support its adoption by the WG. Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 6:51 PM To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group ado= ption of their draft. =20 Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already appro= ved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the poll = to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be adopted. A= doption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are requesting d= eeper involvement from the Working Group. Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, I= suspect this won't be an issue. Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. -- Jeff From nobody Wed Sep 3 10:13:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F601A038D for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:13:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WnpK3ugP3WbA for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0181.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D38F1A0361 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLUPR05MB755.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.208.145) by BLUPR05MB756.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.208.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1019.16; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:11:36 +0000 Received: from BLUPR05MB755.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.208.145]) by BLUPR05MB755.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.208.145]) with mapi id 15.00.1019.015; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:11:35 +0000 From: Santosh P K To: Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Topic: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Index: AQHPxxmNguwuowcIlki/g8dpM5UiOpvvpdzQ Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:11:35 +0000 Message-ID: <1c5bd1943a6b4a40805adf1c7d988b40@BLUPR05MB755.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.11] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:; x-forefront-prvs: 032334F434 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(199003)(13464003)(377454003)(189002)(76576001)(90102001)(101416001)(76482001)(21056001)(74662001)(77982001)(76176999)(54356999)(33646002)(79102001)(50986999)(99396002)(46102001)(92566001)(4396001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(83322001)(86362001)(2656002)(74502001)(31966008)(87936001)(230783001)(80022001)(83072002)(85852003)(99286002)(64706001)(95666004)(20776003)(81342001)(85306004)(105586002)(66066001)(106356001)(106116001)(74316001)(81542001)(108616004)(107886001)(107046002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB756; H:BLUPR05MB755.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/wMV9gFFpRysm_aSpErEmX7lqhL4 X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 17:13:49 -0000 Hello Jeff, I support the adoption as working group document. Thanks Santosh P K=20 -----Original Message----- From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 7:21 AM To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group ado= ption of their draft. =20 Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already appro= ved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the poll = to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be adopted. A= doption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are requesting d= eeper involvement from the Working Group. Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, I= suspect this won't be an issue. Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. -- Jeff From nobody Wed Sep 3 17:01:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B3581A8771; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BExp1s7PStnd; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FDD31A8774; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:00:51 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-d6-54075420e4cd Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B9.4A.25146.02457045; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:47:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:00:48 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" , "'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org'" Subject: RE: draft-tissa-netmod-oam Thread-Topic: draft-tissa-netmod-oam Thread-Index: Ac+tKouGZjiF/7GjRZGwGunQsgwS9AVplJ1wAT/fSeA= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:00:47 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A71B@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82567E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A71Beusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiK5CCHuIwZnPphZ7t71ktXj87RC7 xa2lK1kt5l9sZLV4Ol/S4vOfbYwWxy/8ZrSYt+sDk0X3j6dsDpweU35vZPVYsuQnk8eXy5/Z ApijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDI2N35iLFg9k6ni+6JNTA2MbZ8Yuxg5OSQETCT+v5rFBGGLSVy4 t56ti5GLQ0jgKKPE5kvrWCCcZYwSB3bMYAOpYhMwknixsYcdJCEi0M8o8X7eHbAqZoFGJonv 19+zglQJC6hIPD9wFqxDREBVYn/jf2YI20ri69K1YPtYgGpe/rkIVs8r4CuxZM9OJoh1Exgl Pk3pBDuQEyjR3PuKBcRmBDrw+6k1YM3MAuISt57MhzpcAKj5PDOELSrx8vE/VghbSWLS0nOs EPX5Et/mr2GGWCYocXLmE5YJjKKzkIyahaRsFpIyiLiOxILdn9ggbG2JZQtfM8PYZw48ZkIW X8DIvoqRo7Q4tSw33chwEyMwXo9JsDnuYFzwyfIQowAHoxIP7wJWthAh1sSy4srcQ4zSHCxK 4rya1fOChQTSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTCqXGqU6FRI+tmWLxsSXHN667dHG45/ 9eFZlH50qa/4yZkP54qqVa1yWmghkj9rxn+xvszlHfcuJ9oeqDyjtWIyJ7uI2gKXAxz35i46 d3zD9CfTtqukPRT43fr/ytGwAIFHljZcDd+8BYVur89YnGbL5cO/vuJKiM/hikdePHdsnygz eDX/+q6kxFKckWioxVxUnAgAY9KYUbgCAAA= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/jmYu3MjUWlXzzX2ede3rHs2JWqU Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "time@ietf.org" , "'netmod@ietf.org'" , "nvo3@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:01:04 -0000 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A71Beusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tissa, thank you for detailed and informative response. Information about OAM work= at TRILL WG is very interesting as I haven't been following it in much det= ails. I'd note that applicability of the model developed at TRILL WG to MPL= S OAM is not clear to me. I think that it would be helpful to discuss relev= ance of the TRILL's OAM model at MPLS and MPLS technology related WGs befor= e presenting it as the model that encompasses MPLS. Similarly, I think, for= the IP. Perhaps, for the time, we can refer to the model as TRILL OAM. Mor= e notes in-lined and tagged GIM>>. Regards, Greg From: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) [mailto:tsenevir@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 8:24 AM To: Gregory Mirsky; 'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org' Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; time@ietf.org; 'netmod@= ietf.org'; nvo3@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-tissa-netmod-oam Greg Before answering the specific questions below, would like explain few aspe= cts related to the extended CFM model used here. CFM originally was design= ed exclusively for Ethernet. As part of the TRILL OAM work we decoupled CFM= model from Ethernet based addressing and made it addressing independent. T= hat is the CFM model that is referred here. CFM defines a complete fault model that include fault domains, Test point, = Layering etc. Strict definition of such is needed to develop a complete OAM= solution regardless of the underline technology. CFM does a fantastic job = in accomplishing that and AFIK there is no other model. We are leveraging t= hat model. The word generic OAM is utilized here to indicate that the model can be app= lied regardless of the underlying technology. YANG model is not a one-one copy of CFM YANG defined in MEF. Rather it is d= efined with address independent and extensibility in mind. With the above in mind, specific answers in-line: From: L2vpn [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 10:15 PM To: 'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org' Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; time@ietf.org; 'netmod@ietf.org'; nvo3@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@iet= f.org Subject: draft-tissa-netmod-oam Dear Authors, et.al, please kindly consider my comments and questions to this document: * Introduction o "... it is a reasonable choice to develop the unified OAM framework ba= sed on those (CFM) concepts." I agree that for packet switching connection-= oriented networks that are based on G.800 architecture CFM, but more so Y.1= 731, provides shared concepts. I think that the same cannot be said for con= nectionless packet switching networks. Thus extending CFM model onto arbitr= ary networks without consideration whether these are connection-oriented or= connectionless is very questionable approach, IMO; [Answer] As stated above it is the OAM Model that is leveraged here. Regard= less of connection oriented or not the model on Fault domains, Test points = etc is valid. In theory connection oriented can be broken in to connection establishment = and data forwarding. With that in mind, one can define Fault domain and tes= t points. Followed by definition of the Fault identifications tools accordi= ngly. Do you have a preferred OAM tool for fault verification/isolation and loss= and performance monitoring for connection oriented connectuons ?. If so wo= uld like to review and map to the model. GIM>> I don't have "favorite tool" but would point that in connectionless n= etwork one cannot define Mis-connection defect and thus OAM models for con= nectionless and connection-oriented networks would be different. o "...CFM, it is a reasonable choice to develop the unified OAM framework= based on those concepts" IP OAM is not based on Ethernet Service OAM model= or principles but, IMO, OAM of overlay networks more closer resemble IP OA= M as these networks are connectionless in their architecture; [Answer] Please see the answer above and extended CFM model. It is the mod= el that is presented here, regardless of the connectioness, OAM tools need= fault domains and fault boundaries. Addidtionally as stated in the explana= tion above, there is nothing Ethernet in CFM, once the addressing is decoup= led. o "The YANG model presented in this document is the base model and suppor= ts IP Ping and Traceroute." If only these and similar OAM tools, e.g. LSP p= ing, Loopback/Linktrace, are in scope of the document, then, I believe, the= title may say something like "YANG model of on-demand OAM tool to detect a= nd localize Loss of Continuity defect". Referring to ping/traceroute as "ge= neric OAM" comes as stretch too far; [Answer] I think there is a miss understanding this model is not limited to= Ping and Trace route. Ping and traceroute are only examples to get the wor= k stared and discussion going. As we go along other tools will be mapped to= the model. GIM>> LSP Ping does more that ICMP or CFM's Loopback and Linktrace as it ve= rifies correlation between control and data planes. Had that functionality = been removed by TRILL OAM from "extended CFM model"? o "...initiate a performance monitoring session can do so in the same ma= nner regardless of the underlying protocol or technology" I'd point to work= of LMAP WG on informational model of performance measurements in large-sca= le access networks, work of ITU-T's SG15, MEF. Perhaps sentence can be stop= ped after "... or a Traceroute". [Answer] I did not fully understand your point. o "In this document we define the YANG model for Generic OAM" Can you pro= vide definition or reference to the definition of the "Generic OAM"? It is = challenging to validate informational model of something that not been suff= iciently defined. [Answer] As explained earlier terminology generic OAM is used to indicate = that the presented OAM model can be applied independent of the underlying t= echnology. In section 1, we have stated the following: "..In this document,= we take the [8021Q] CFM model and extend it to a technology independent fr= amework and build the corresponding YANG model accordingly. The YANG model = presented in this document is the base model and supports IP Ping and Trace= route. The generic OAM YANG model is designed such that it can be extended = to cover various technologies. Technology dependent nodes and RPC commands = are defined in technology specific YANG models, which use and extend the ba= se model defined here. .... " GIM>> Had other WGs agreed that the proposed by TRILL WG OAM model is repre= sentative of their technologies? If not, then what "Generic" is there? * Section 3 o "This allows users to traverse between OAM of different technologies at= ease through a uniform API set." Usually relationships between OAM layers = referred and viewed as OAM interworking. There are several examples of IETF= addressing aspects of OAM interworking. I think that interworking includes= not only scenarios of nested OAM layers but peering layers and thus is bro= ader than introduced in the document "nested OAM". [Answer] Can you please provide some example here, I am not quite clear. Guessing from the word peering, if we are referring to cascaded sections of= different technologies such as IP Cloud, MPLS cloud and another IP cloud. = Then the model presented here is the answer. You can have an end end OAM se= ssion at a higher MD-Level. Each of the clouds below can have separate OAM = at a lower MD-Level. These can be utilized for fault isolation. o Figure 1 depicts OAM of both connection-oriented and connectionless net= works. What you see common, generic in respective OAM of these networks? [Answer] Please see the answers above. * Section 4 o "In IP, the MA can be per IP Subnet ..." As there's no definition of MA= in IP, is this the definition or one of examples. Can MA in IP network be = other than per IP Subnet? [Answer] It is ".. can be", so it meant to be an example and other possibil= ities are not ruled out and model does not assume any such limitation. o "Under each MA, there can be two or more MEPs (Maintenance End Points)"= Firstly, since you adopt MA-centric terminology, MEP stands for Maintenanc= e Association End Point. Secondly, in some OAM models Down and Up MEP being= distinguished. Would your model consider that? As there's no definition of= MEP for several networks you've listed, e.g. IP, how the YANG model will a= bstract something that is not defined? And thirdly, how and where MIPs are = located in IP OAM? [Answer] Yes model accept both UP/Down. One cannot say for IP there is no MEP. MEP is a functional abstraction of a= test point that generate and respond to OAM messages. In that regard IP de= vices today have an implicit MEP at the CPU. The model allow to provide mor= e semantics to the MEP and allow to create UP/Down per interface or other s= cope, hence providing more granularity in fault isolation/verification and = monitoring. GIM>> Is IP MEP being defined as being in control plane/CPU? What if it is = in NPU, i.e. data plane? If on CPU, then what differentiates Up MEP from Do= wn MEP from POV of packets it transmits and receives? And how MIP functions= in IP based on TRILL OAM model? Is it, as in Ethernet OAM, constructed of = two MHFs? Thank you for your consideration of my notes and looking forward to the int= eresting discussion. Thank you for spending time to review and comment. We are updating the next= version with comments received so far and specifically during IETF in Cana= da. We are more than happy enhance where applicable or need more clarity. Regards, Greg --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A71Beusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Tissa,

thank you for detailed= and informative response. Information about OAM work at TRILL WG is very i= nteresting as I haven’t been following it in much details. I’d = note that applicability of the model developed at TRILL WG to MPLS OAM is not clear to me. I think that it would be helpful = to discuss relevance of the TRILL’s OAM model at MPLS and MPLS techno= logy related WGs before presenting it as the model that encompasses MPLS. S= imilarly, I think, for the IP. Perhaps, for the time, we can refer to the model as TRILL OAM. More notes in-lined = and tagged GIM>>.

 

   &nbs= p;            Regard= s,

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Greg

 

From: Tissa Se= nevirathne (tsenevir) [mailto:tsenevir@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 8:24 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; 'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org'
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; time@ietf.org; '= netmod@ietf.org'; nvo3@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-tissa-netmod-oam

 

Greg=

 

Before answering the s= pecific questions below,  would like explain few aspects related to th= e extended CFM model used here. CFM  originally was designed exclusive= ly for Ethernet. As part of the TRILL OAM work we decoupled CFM model from Ethernet based addressing and made it addressi= ng independent. That is the CFM model that is referred here.

 

CFM defines a complete= fault model that include fault domains, Test point, Layering etc. Strict d= efinition of such is needed to develop a complete OAM solution regardless o= f the underline technology. CFM does a fantastic job in accomplishing that and AFIK there is no other model. We= are leveraging that model.

 

The word generic OAM i= s utilized here to indicate that the model can be applied regardless of the= underlying technology.

 

YANG model is not a on= e-one copy of CFM YANG defined in MEF. Rather it is defined with address in= dependent and extensibility in mind.

 

With the above in mind= , specific answers in-line:

 

From: L2vpn [<= a href=3D"mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org">mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 10:15 PM
To: 'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org'
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; = time@ietf.org; 'netmod@ietf.org'; nvo3= @ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: draft-tissa-netmod-oam

 

Dear Authors, et.al,

please kindly consider my comments and questions to = this document:

·         Introduction

o    “… it is a reasonable choi= ce to develop the unified OAM framework based on those (CFM) concepts.̶= 1; I agree that for packet switching connection-oriented networks that are = based on G.800 architecture CFM, but more so Y.1731, provides shared concepts. I think that the same cannot be said for connectionless p= acket switching networks. Thus extending CFM model onto arbitrary networks = without consideration whether these are connection-oriented or connectionle= ss is very questionable approach, IMO;

 

 

[Answer] As stated abo= ve it is the OAM Model that is leveraged here. Regardless of connection ori= ented or not the model on Fault domains, Test points etc is valid.

 

In theory connection o= riented can be broken in to connection establishment and data forwarding. W= ith that in mind, one can define Fault domain and test points. Followed by = definition of the Fault identifications tools accordingly.

 

Do you have a preferre= d OAM tool  for fault verification/isolation and loss and performance = monitoring for connection oriented connectuons ?. If so would like to revie= w and map to the model.

 

GIM>> I don̵= 7;t have “favorite tool” but would point that in connectionless= network one cannot define Mis-connection defect and thus OAM models for &n= bsp;connectionless and connection-oriented networks would be different.

 

o   “…CFM, it is a reasonable choice= to develop the unified OAM framework based on those concepts” IP OAM= is not based on Ethernet Service OAM model or principles but, IMO, OAM of = overlay networks more closer resemble IP OAM as these networks are connectionless in their architecture;

 

[Answer]  Please = see the answer above and extended CFM model. It is the model that is presen= ted here, regardless of the connectioness,  OAM tools need fault domai= ns and fault boundaries. Addidtionally as stated in the explanation above, there is nothing Ethernet in CFM, once the addre= ssing is decoupled.

 

o   “The YANG model presented in this docu= ment is the base model and supports IP Ping and Traceroute.” If only = these and similar OAM tools, e.g. LSP ping, Loopback/Linktrace, are in scop= e of the document, then, I believe, the title may say something like “YANG model of on-demand OAM tool to detect a= nd localize Loss of Continuity defect”. Referring to ping/traceroute = as “generic OAM” comes as stretch too far;

 

[Answer] I think there= is a miss understanding this model is not limited to Ping and Trace route.= Ping and traceroute are only examples to get the work stared and discussio= n going. As we go along other tools will be mapped to the model.

 

GIM>> LSP Ping d= oes more that ICMP or CFM’s Loopback and Linktrace as it verifies cor= relation between control and data planes. Had that functionality been remov= ed by TRILL OAM from “extended CFM model”?

 

o    “…initiate a performance m= onitoring session can do so in the same manner regardless of the underlying= protocol or technology” I’d point to work of LMAP WG on inform= ational model of performance measurements in large-scale access networks, work of ITU-T’s SG15, MEF. Perhaps sentence can be stopped= after “… or a Traceroute”.

[Answer] I did not ful= ly understand your point.

 

o   “In this document we define the YANG m= odel for Generic OAM” Can you provide definition or reference to the = definition of the “Generic OAM”? It is challenging to validate = informational model of something that not been sufficiently defined.

 

[Answer]  As expl= ained earlier terminology generic OAM is used to indicate that the presente= d OAM model can be applied independent of the underlying technology. In sec= tion 1, we have stated the following: “..In this document, we take the [8021Q] CFM model and extend it to a technology= independent framework and build the corresponding YANG model accordingly. = The YANG model presented in this document is the base model and supports IP= Ping and Traceroute. The generic OAM YANG model is designed such that it can be extended to cover various t= echnologies. Technology dependent nodes and RPC commands are defined in tec= hnology specific YANG models, which use and extend the base model defined h= ere. …. “

 

GIM>> Had other = WGs agreed that the proposed by TRILL WG OAM model is representative of the= ir technologies? If not, then what “Generic” is there?

 

·         Section 3

o   “This allows users to traverse between= OAM of different technologies at ease through a uniform API set.” Us= ually relationships between OAM layers referred and viewed as OAM interwork= ing. There are several examples of IETF addressing aspects of OAM interworking. I think that interworking includes not only s= cenarios of nested OAM layers but peering layers and thus is broader than i= ntroduced in the document “nested OAM”.

[Answer]  Can you= please provide some example here, I am not quite clear.<= /p>

 

Guessing from the word= peering, if we are referring to cascaded sections of different technologie= s such as IP Cloud, MPLS cloud and another IP cloud. Then the model present= ed here is the answer. You can have an end end OAM session at a higher MD-Level. Each of the clouds below can = have separate OAM at a lower MD-Level. These can be utilized for fault isol= ation.

 

o   Figure 1 depicts OAM of both connection-orie= nted and connectionless networks. What you see common, generic in respectiv= e OAM of these networks?

 

[Answer] Please see th= e answers above.

 

·         Section 4

o   “In IP, the MA can be per IP Subnet &#= 8230;” As there’s no definition of MA in IP, is this the defini= tion or one of examples. Can MA in IP network be other than per IP Subnet?<= o:p>

[Answer] It is “= .. can be”, so it meant to be an example and other possibilities are = not ruled out and model does not assume any such limitation.

 

o   “Under each MA, there can be two or mo= re MEPs (Maintenance End Points)” Firstly, since you adopt MA-centric= terminology, MEP stands for Maintenance Association End Point. Secondly, i= n some OAM models Down and Up MEP being distinguished. Would your model consider that? As there’s no definition of MEP for = several networks you’ve listed, e.g. IP, how the YANG model will abst= ract something that is not defined? And thirdly, how and where MIPs are loc= ated in IP OAM?

 

[Answer] Yes model acc= ept both UP/Down.

 

One cannot say for IP = there is no MEP. MEP is a functional abstraction of a test point that gener= ate and respond to OAM messages. In that regard IP devices today have an im= plicit MEP at the CPU. The model allow to provide more semantics to the MEP and allow to create UP/Down per inter= face or other scope, hence providing more granularity in fault isolation/ve= rification and monitoring.

 

GIM>> Is IP MEP = being defined as being in control plane/CPU? What if it is in NPU, i.e. dat= a plane? If on CPU, then what differentiates Up MEP from Down MEP from POV = of packets it transmits and receives? And how MIP functions in IP based on TRILL OAM model? Is it, as in Ethernet OA= M, constructed of two MHFs?

 

Thank you for your consideration of my notes and loo= king forward to the interesting discussion.

 

Thank you for spending= time to review and comment. We are updating the next version with comments= received so far and specifically during IETF in Canada. We are more than h= appy enhance where applicable or need more clarity.

 

Regards,

    =     Greg

--_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A71Beusaamb103erics_-- From nobody Wed Sep 3 18:09:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FD11A8799 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:09:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54DW22x4W384 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A7FA1A7034 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BMC22981; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:09:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 02:09:36 +0100 Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.78]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:09:30 +0800 From: Mingui Zhang To: Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Topic: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Index: AQHPxxmOuH2QLKBnAUGVtsa05XCmuJvwKeYg Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 01:09:29 +0000 Message-ID: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E76AAB1EFF@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.175] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/-jiay8b1xr6qbez4tZxnTxKKGHc X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:09:40 -0000 I have read the draft and find it's well written. I agree it's a necessary = part of SBFD work and support its adoption. Thanks, Mingui >-----Original Message----- >From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas >Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:51 AM >To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org >Subject: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip > >The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group >adoption of their draft. > >Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already >approved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the >poll to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be >adopted. Adoption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are >requesting deeper involvement from the Working Group. > >Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, = I >suspect this won't be an issue. > >Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. > >-- Jeff From nobody Wed Sep 3 18:41:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97991A6F22 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:41:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhnXEmWfa-R6 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E09B1A87B3 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:41:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=971; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409794869; x=1411004469; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=oSHTt7impBMFi6Zd7O+tWBKMFTloSGumhK8KMoKu7MQ=; b=TS363eywYPu0ISML1UlkHcidJKOzRfymGy/rDIr9gYfgMfPMmGKBdvpv Ln0dMhvlSDjRQmlUij5Aff+U65RA9K+fPaVltM/aWqFqMtjVLd4a6GB1w xIZJ1J8rGVba7kyJs6ZixWuWOg/I61etIy1378+3+A117RVEdevz+S19w I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAL/CB1StJA2H/2dsb2JhbABZgw2BLtANAYENFneEAwEBAQQdHUsEAgEIDgMEAQELFAkHMhQJCAIEARIIiDq+IwEXjxw4BoMpgR0BBJEyoEmDYWyBSIEHAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,462,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="74771411" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2014 01:41:09 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s841f8dP000965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Sep 2014 01:41:09 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.207]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:41:08 -0500 From: "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" To: Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Topic: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Index: AQHPxxmOSm9oP2lWo0WhPOMxYzs0q5vwNDtw Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 01:41:07 +0000 Message-ID: <315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D3468C6D7@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.65.74.169] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/AAUq42f_D1W0-gziqjOTUqsBI9Y X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:41:11 -0000 Hello Jeff/ all, I support the WG adoption of this document. Thanks Prasad=20 -----Original Message----- From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 7:21 AM To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group ado= ption of their draft. =20 Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already appro= ved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the poll = to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be adopted. A= doption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are requesting d= eeper involvement from the Working Group. Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, I= suspect this won't be an issue. Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. -- Jeff From nobody Thu Sep 4 00:21:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D9C1A212A for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:21:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KogXDKZCf7XG for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3D9D1A1F70 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:21:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BMD02780; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 07:21:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.34) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 08:21:51 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.159]) by SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 15:21:47 +0800 From: Vero Zheng To: Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Topic: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Index: AQHPxxmOJgbCb5zhC0mJtKM+WGxHq5vwkp1g Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 07:21:47 +0000 Message-ID: <2EEA459CD95CCB4988BFAFC0F2287B5C5C8A0554@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com> References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.115] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Eg293ntcmJ_DU_8arGrc-X7Bhv4 X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 07:21:54 -0000 Hi Jeff, I read the draft and think it should be progressed. I support the adoption = by the WG. Cheers, Vero > -----Original Message----- > From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:51 AM > To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip >=20 > The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group > adoption of their draft. >=20 > Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already app= roved > as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the poll to= the > Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be adopted. Adopti= on > does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are requesting deeper > involvement from the Working Group. >=20 > Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption,= I > suspect this won't be an issue. >=20 > Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. >=20 > -- Jeff From nobody Sat Sep 13 07:23:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1811A06FF for ; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 07:23:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QPgFesuEskxR for ; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 07:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839AE1A06F7 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 07:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E2EFFC25D; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:23:17 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Message-ID: <20140913142317.GA10965@pfrc> References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/AIDNV8vnTppE2wlE7O-4UCRwBIU X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:23:19 -0000 Twelve of you managed to miss the *not* below. :-) Even so, the adoption period has passed. Authors, please submit the draft as draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip. -- Jeff On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:51:09PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working Group > adoption of their draft. > > Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already > approved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, the > poll to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to be > adopted. Adoption does not imply perfection, merely that the authors are > requesting deeper involvement from the Working Group. > > Since this document has already received good feedback prior to adoption, I > suspect this won't be an issue. > > Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. > > -- Jeff From nobody Sun Sep 14 06:45:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EE51A0386; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 06:44:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ppiOyjaD97yv; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 06:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C052A1A0380; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 06:44:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p6 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140914134453.12334.88987.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 06:44:53 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/V0P_84isaA3iHq3P9TdVEF4s2Cs Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:44:55 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Working Group of the IETF. Title : Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS Authors : Nobo Akiya Carlos Pignataro Dave Ward Filename : draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-00.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2014-09-14 Abstract: This document defines procedures to use Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS environments. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Sun Sep 14 06:57:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D561A0398 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 06:57:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -116.153 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-116.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AuoxvorHmkS8 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 06:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 222121A0393 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 06:57:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1885; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1410703025; x=1411912625; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+NkzZFQsXDGwvomsBejHktKzu8s+YA0F809ZhJr+kFE=; b=V6TR3bZF8AVFX29v/pkaM5+uh2wkTEIG5TfMAwzBUovBxCctCnHxkYbM j681VYBynYzILJjEgF8b8coJwwXg8AiqHJjL3YLA/M+GP7Br0dKpXZbPA Zop9VOOqWIt4gGyOaYqiTOCdtz4q9wQaUU9ozOkL6yp1gLJkqXNilvhYM I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAMWdFVStJA2H/2dsb2JhbABggmojU1vJRIdOAYEEFniEAwEBAQQdHTEaBAIBCA4DBAEBAQoUCQcyFAkIAgQBEggBiDUBDLdmARePHDgGgyiBHQWPN4IWhDeIY5Ngg15sAYFHgQIBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,521,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="77795540" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2014 13:57:05 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8EDv3VR007217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:57:03 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 08:57:03 -0500 From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Topic: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip Thread-Index: AQHPxxmOoUonnCaoS0iL2q7HJxPquJv/giOAgAE0dbA= Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:57:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140903015109.GK7736@pfrc> <20140913142317.GA10965@pfrc> In-Reply-To: <20140913142317.GA10965@pfrc> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.240.115] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/LYjvGldDpRt9P0xhEi6Fm0AZCtg X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:57:07 -0000 Hi Jeff and WG, Thank you for allowing the document to become a WG document. The document h= as been published as draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip. URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless= -ip-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip= / Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-00 Jeff, authors feel that this is a good trigger to initiate port allocation = of the S-BFD ports via Expert Review process. Section 8 of draft-ietf-bfd-s= eamless-ip-00 has all necessary values. Can you help initiating this proces= s? Thanks! -Nobo, on behalf of authors > -----Original Message----- > From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 10:23 AM > To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Call for adoption for draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip >=20 > Twelve of you managed to miss the *not* below. :-) >=20 > Even so, the adoption period has passed. Authors, please submit the draf= t > as draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip. >=20 > -- Jeff >=20 > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:51:09PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > The authors of draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip have requested Working > > Group adoption of their draft. > > > > Note that this draft is part of the seamless BFD work that is already > > approved as a chartered item and forms part of its suite. Given this, > > the poll to the Working Group is whether this draft is *not* ready to > > be adopted. Adoption does not imply perfection, merely that the > > authors are requesting deeper involvement from the Working Group. > > > > Since this document has already received good feedback prior to > > adoption, I suspect this won't be an issue. > > > > Please give your feedback to the list by Friday, September 12. > > > > -- Jeff From nobody Sun Sep 14 12:07:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D11A1A019C for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 12:07:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -116.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-116.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G2gnkzun0dvl for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F80E1A0183 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10321; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1410721633; x=1411931233; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=8uXDihKqV01eGEpNrCfbdlNGJL4BCAWkiRSXK6BpUlM=; b=mQJeyBoSR64JzP9UFK/MNUIzjCbeg2W+cDgkCQzuWClDvkCmfzrRJnCX 7GhLCVS9CAYPRCqAxLxo4AwWcFqei5DDGS4kdwSVIG80mWlCLUwpntTSw NJhLMbgHn8nLiIHo+NfNmDKjyjo8vl1K4O9M0NtzAO8aEjD7W+ZApA4zG c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiEFADDmFVStJA2K/2dsb2JhbABggkcjI1Nbx2iBa4dOAYEGFniEAwEBAQQtTBACAQgRBAEBCx0HMhQJCAEBBA4FCIg2AQy4VgEXjxwxBgGDLoEdBYZQiGeCFoQ3iGOTYINebAGBR4ECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,522,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="77842076" Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2014 19:07:12 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8EJ7Cvf011358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 14 Sep 2014 19:07:12 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:07:12 -0500 From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: "youssef.elfathi@orange.com" Subject: RE: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-02#section-7.5 Thread-Topic: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-02#section-7.5 Thread-Index: Ac/PfNqziVojtixLQGC/L24BVhbPmgA0Vmtw Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 19:07:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <9342_1410631456_54148720_9342_11045_1_95B8C2085563754CA854528418622B3D48C8C725@OPEXCLILM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> In-Reply-To: <9342_1410631456_54148720_9342_11045_1_95B8C2085563754CA854528418622B3D48C8C725@OPEXCLILM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.240.115] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3CC64Axmbalnx01ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/C37WB_VBYFXoA7NCOHHxAJHuUaQ Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 19:07:16 -0000 --_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3CC64Axmbalnx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Youssef, Thanks for the comment, and I hope it is ok that I am adding the list to th= is reply. The intent of the text is correct as it tried to describe two sep= arate scenarios: An SBFDInitiator initiating the poll sequence & an SBFDRef= lector initiating the poll sequence. However, what you pointed out is valid= in a sense that the text need clarifications (i.e. it is indeed confusing)= . We will add clarifications to this section (7.5. The Poll Sequence) in th= e next version. Thanks! -Nobo From: youssef.elfathi@orange.com [mailto:youssef.elfathi@orange.com] Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 2:04 PM To: Nobo Akiya (nobo) Subject: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-02#section= -7.5 Hi Nobo, I was reading your draft about s-bfd and in the section 7.5 I think there i= s a typo, we should read "If an SBFDReflector receives an S-BFD packet with= Final (F) bit set..." and not "If an SBFDReflector receives an S-BFD packe= t with Poll (P) bit set..." Regards, Youssef 7.5= . The Poll Sequence Poll sequence MAY be used in both directions. The Poll sequence MUST operate in accordance with [RFC5880]= . An SBFDReflector MAY use the Poll sequence to slow down that rate at which S-BFD packets are generated from an SBFDInitiator. This is done by the SBFDReflector using procedures described in Section 7.8 and setting the Poll (P) bit in the reflected S-BFD packet. The SBFDInitiator is to then send the next S-BFD packet with the Final (F) bit set. If an SBFDReflector receives an S-BFD packet with Poll (P) bit set, then the SBFDReflector MUST respond with an S-BFD packet with Poll (P) bit cleared and Final (F) bit set. --_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3CC64Axmbalnx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Youssef,=

 

Thanks for the comment= , and I hope it is ok that I am adding the list to this reply. The intent o= f the text is correct as it tried to describe two separate scenarios: An SB= FDInitiator initiating the poll sequence & an SBFDReflector initiating the poll sequence. However, what you poi= nted out is valid in a sense that the text need clarifications (i.e. it is = indeed confusing). We will add clarifications to this section (7.5. The Pol= l Sequence) in the next version.

 

Thanks!

 

-Nobo

 

youss= ef.elfathi@orange.com [mailto:youssef.elfathi@orange.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 2:04 PM
To: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
Subject: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-02#= section-7.5

 

Hi Nobo,

 

I was reading your draft about = s-bfd and in the section 7.5 I think there is a typo, we should read “= ;If an SBFDReflector receives an S-BFD packet with Final (F) bit set…= ” and not “If an SBFDReflector receives an S-BFD packet with Poll (P) bit set…”

 

Regards,

 

Youssef

 

7.5.  The Poll Sequence

 
 
   Poll sequence MAY be used in both di=
rections.  The Poll sequence MUST
   operate in accordance with [<=
span lang=3D"FR">RF=
C5880].  An SBFDReflector MAY u=
se the
   Poll sequence to slow down that rate=
 at which S-BFD packets are
   generated from an SBFDInitiator.&nbs=
p; This is done by the SBFDReflector
   using procedures described in Section 7.8 and setting the Poll (P)
   bit in the reflected S-BFD packet.&n=
bsp; The SBFDInitiator is to then send
   the next S-BFD packet with the Final=
 (F) bit set.  If an
   SBFDReflector receives an S-BFD pack=
et with Poll (P) bit set, then
   the SBFDReflector MUST respond with =
an S-BFD packet with Poll (P) bit
   cleared and Final (F) bit set.<=
/o:p>

 

 
--_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3CC64Axmbalnx01ciscoc_-- From nobody Fri Sep 19 05:46:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472331A0135 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 05:46:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tn9KNJoJIABM for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 05:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC131A0120 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 05:46:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Milestones changed for bfd WG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p6 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140919124641.15360.30014.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 05:46:41 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/UtOFntF5m429UIrN-5rLwGVpFAg X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:46:43 -0000 Changed milestone "Submit the BFD Common Intervals document to the IESG to be considered as an Informational RFC", resolved as "Done". URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/charter/