On 12/8/15, 10:10 AM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]> wrote:
Carlos: Hi! > >> On Dec 8, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >> On 12/6/15, 4:09 AM, "Santosh P K" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>. . . >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Major: >>> 1. Section 1. (Introduction) says that "This document extends BFD to >>> provide solutions to use cases listed in >>> [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case]." Maybe it's just me, but I fail to >>>see >>> how all the use cases are satisfied - in part because the requirements >>>in >>> I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case are not clear (see my review for that >>> document), and in part because this document isn't explicit about how >>>the >>> specification solves the use cases. For example, how does this >>>document >>> provide a solution for the use case in section 3.6. (BFD for Anycast >>> Address)? >>> 2. Normative References >>> o I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint should clearly be Normative because of the >>>new >>> bfd.SessionType state variable >>> o I-D.ietf-bfd-generic-crypto-auth should also be Normative because of >>> how the Security Considerations are written: pointing to is as a >>>"MUST". >>> Given that (as far as I can tell) there aren't implementations of >>> I-D.ietf-bfd-generic-crypto-auth, we could end up with a Normative >>> reference that blocks the publication of this document. I want to >>> suggest that the comments be reworded as a suggestion or pointer to >>> potential solutions, not as a mandate to use them. [Disclaimer: we >>>will >>> still need the SecDir to review.] >>> >>> [SPK] Carlos has replied to these comments and I am waiting for >>> confirmation on these comments. >> >> Unless I missed something, Carlos [1] didn't reply to #1: how are the >>use >> cases satisfied? I'm looking forward to an updated version of >> I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case which may help. >> >> FWIW, I agree with his comments related to the references. And still >> think that both should be Normative. BTW, I don't think that changing >>the >> "MUST" to "SHOULD" when referring to I-D.ietf-bfd-generic-crypto-auth >> changed that need. > >What¹s your (Alvar, Jeff) view on whether this doc should define >bfd.SessionType and not multipoint? > >Seems to me that it is probably best (although an almost negligible >preference) to define it here and have multipoint referencing s-bfd. Either way works for me. Alvaro.
