Subject: Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 18:21:54 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a process discuss:

If I read things correctly, this draft purports to update an _unpublished_ RFC
(i.e., another draft.). If so, can't we just correct that draft before
publishing it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Assuming this progresses mostly as-is, please mention the update in the
abstract, and put a sentence or two in the introduction to give a high level
summary of what the update actually is.

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 18:08:27 +0200

[adding back authors/WG/chairs/shepherd, which I unintentionally pruned 
by replying only to the list... sorry]

Thank you Ben. Perfectly clear to me now.

The Introduction of bfd-multipoint currently states:
    As an option, if a return path from a tail to the head exists, the
    tail may notify the head of the lack of multipoint connectivity.
    Details of tail notification to the head are outside the scope of
    this document and are discussed in
    [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail].

Would you consider this as sufficient?

Thank you
-m

Le 2018-07-04 à 6:14, Ben Campbell a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> so, I'm not sure to have fully understood your initial statement and I might have introduced additional confusion with mine.
>>
>> bfd-multipoint-active-tail extends the capabilities of bfd-multipoint and in doing so modifies that base specification, this is why bfd-multipoint-active-tail Updates bfd-multipoint (though I would agree that the header very badly indicates that).
>>
>> Are you suggesting that bfd-multipoint-active-tail should not Update bfd-multipoint and that the authors simply add a reference to bfd-multipoint-active-tail in bfd-multipoint?
> 
> Yes, although I would suggest at least some explanation in mfd-multipoint about the reason for the reference.
> 
>> And are you suggesting that because we are progressing the two drafts at the same time?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Ben.
> 
>>
>> Thanks
>> -m
>>
>> Le 2018-07-03 à 20:05, Ben Campbell a écrit :
>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 2:31 AM, Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Ben,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for your review.
>>>>> About your DISCUSS, bfd-multipoint-active-tail indeed updates bfd-multipoint.
>>>>> Correcting this would in fact require to merge the two documents.
>>>>> Back in November 2014 the WG has decided to split the multipoint BFD spec in two. This was mainly driven by the existence of implementations of bfd-multipoint but not yet of bfd-multipoint-active-tail, which still holds today.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t see why it’s to merge the documents to fix this. Why not have  bfd-multipoint mention the differences in bfd-multipoint-active-tail and directly reference it. The point of “updates” is to make sure readers are aware of the updating draft; a direct reference in the “updated” seems an even better way.
>>> Uhm, make that “I don’t know why it’s _necessary_ to merge…”  and “a direct reference in the updated _draft_”
>>> Ben.
>>>>
>>>> Ben.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -m
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 2018-07-03 à 3:21, Ben Campbell a écrit :

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 16:54:28 -0300

FWIW, I think that the text below actually indicates that the behavior
in draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail is not needed
for draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint to work.
IOW, draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail is an option (as it says below),
only to be used “if a return path exists”…and it should then not formally
Update draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint.

Alvaro.

On July 4, 2018 at 6:08:49 PM, Martin Vigoureux ([email-masked])
wrote:

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:48:03 -0700

Hi Ben,
thank you for the review and your comments. Please find my answers in-line
tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail/
GIM>> In the Introduction we've stated:
   This application of BFD is an extension to Multipoint BFD
   [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint].
I believe that the only way to avoid that is to merge the two
specifications.

GIM>> Please consider the following updates:
Abstract
NEW TEXT:
    This document updates draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint.

Introduction
OLD TEXT:
   This application of BFD is an extension to Multipoint BFD
   [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], which allows tails to notify the head of
   the lack of multipoint connectivity.  As a further option, heads can
   request a notification from the tails by means of a polling
   mechanism.  Notification to the head can be enabled for all tails, or
   for only a subset of the tails.
NEW TEXT:
   This application of BFD is an extension to Multipoint BFD
   [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], which allows tails to notify the head of
   the lack of multipoint connectivity.  As a further option, heads can
   request a notification from the tails by means of a polling
   mechanism.  Notification to the head can be enabled for all tails, or
   for only a subset of the tails.  In order to achieve that, among
   several updates to [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], the new state variables
   and new values for existing variables has been added.

Hope these address your comments.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:15:39 -0700

Hi Ben,
at the BFD WG meeting in Montreal, we've agreed to remove the "Updates ..."
reference from the front page of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail as
the number of cross-references between the two documents is sufficient. The
new working version attached. Greatly appreciate your consideration and
comments.

Regards,
Greg