Hi Jeff,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:15 PM
> To: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
> Cc: Black, David; [email protected]; Zafar Ali (zali); General Area
> Review Team ([email protected]); [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:18:28PM +0000, Nobo Akiya (nobo) wrote:
> > > I did not see a compliance requirement for a system that only
> > > implements BFD protocol version 0. That absence should at least be
> > > mentioned somewhere. For example, if this reflects a considered and
> > > deliberate decision by the WG, that should be mentioned in the
> introduction.
> >
> > Good point. If I remember correctly, BFD version 0 had a problem in the
> state machine that can cause the two ends to fall into a deadlock. It would
> be, therefore, very bad for anybody to have BFD version 0 deployed out
> there, and asking for any MIB compliance requirement for such. Consensus
> on absence of compliance requirement for BFD version 0 was never polled
> in the WG, but I can say that there shouldn't be any desire for that.
>
> With respect to v0 vs. v1 from a MIB perspective, the only user-visible detail
> was the additional state in the state machine. That means that the MIB in its
> current form should be able to accommodate bfd v0.
>
> This does suggest, however, that the TC mib could use a comment in the
> DESCRIPTION toward the point that failing(5) is only valid for BFD v0.
Agree, and it's already there :)
[snip]
IANAbfdSessStateTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"BFD session state. State failing(5) is only applicable if
corresponding session is running in BFD version 0."
[snip]
-Nobo
>
> A conformance clause indicating that those so foolish as to deploy BFD v0
> would better be served by the determinism of a five-year-old child flipping
> a coin is probably out of scope for the draft. But if someone has
> sufficiently
> proscriptive text to add to say "don't do bfd v0" that is acceptable to the
> reviewers, I'm fine with that.
>
> -- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
