Hi Sam,
thank you for your dedication. Please let me know if I can be of any help.
Regards,
Greg
From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sam Aldrin
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 6:09 PM
To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Advancing S-BFD
Hi Carlos,
I do owe a new version with comments addressed, irrespective of whether it
becomes RFC or not.
Few top level points though.
1. If you are making decisions based on how many are interested, BFD WG will
disappoint you, pretty much every draft. Mailing list is the reflection of it.
2. Till there is a parking place for documents like use cases, problem
statements, Frameworks, it is moot point to say that, there is no use.
Fact of the matter, IETF takes too long that protocols becomes obsolete before
they become RFC and no one know what those protocols are trying to solve (lack
of use case?). :D
Having said that, will try to get a version soon and let WG deal with it
however it likes.
Unfortunately IETF is not fulltime job and co-authors and contributors have
gone incognito.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Álvaro,
Thanks for the response! — please see inline.
On Mar 18, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 3/18/16, 9:25 AM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Carlos:
Hi!
BFD Group, chairs, Álvaro,
I'm replying because the WG already asked for publication of the base
S-BFD documents (including the use-cases).
...
The bfd-seamless-use-case document was last submitted in July 2015. I can
appreciate the fact that publishing use-cases after the protocol is
potentially of little value ‹ there is a value in that those use-cases
can guide extensions to the protocol. But it also concerns me that there
seems to be very little value for the base document to wait on publishing
the use-cases first, since the -base protocol is done and the base
document was updated to be independent from use cases. The use case
document is only referenced by the -base document, and that pointer is
Informative [3].
What¹s the plan on pushing forward bfd-seamless-base (and untangling the
other 5)? Is there something for the WG or editors to do (I assume not
since -base has no dependencies and all AD Evaluation comments have been
addressed)?
I had asked the WG to consider not publishing
draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case [A], but after a lengthy exchange with
the authors and a discussion at IETF 94, the WG decided to "give another
chance to the authors" [B].
A video [Ψ] is worth a lot more than a thousand meeting minutes [B]. I must say
that [Ψ] conveys the sentiment with much more richness!
[B] that you cite says:
"[Jeff]
S-BFD use case document publication status - what is the feeling of WG? Taking
sense of the room. Do you think we should publish this? Not to publish this?
Two people have opinion on this, one way or the other. Sense of WG is that this
is not critical work, will give another chance to the authors.”
Basically:
* “Two people have opinion on this”
* “this is not critical work”
* "will give another chance to the authors”
That does not sounds terribly convincing. Don’t get me wrong — I personally
have no strong opinion about what to do with use-case; in fact, I find it
terribly disappointing and even demoralizing that folks invest their volunteer
time to get to Finish_Line_minus_5_minutes and be told ‘the race got
cancelled’. I believe those decisions are taken early and then we stick with
the decision, and IETF WGs and chairs will be much better served with an actual
IESG statement about this. However, I do have an opinion about not artificially
slowing down protocol work, and I believe that protocol (i.e., the 5 S-BFD
documents on base, ip, ospf, isis, l2tpext, and pals) work is the high-order
bit in this set.
%sam - If 'S' in S-BFD meant SDN, it would have been different story :D. IMO,
if usecase or requirements do not have interest, why would protocols are
important and have interest? Alternately, question to be asked is, why is WG
not interested. Document or SBFD itself?
In any case, I have one quick question: WG, Jeff, Reshad, Alvaro, when does
this 'another chance' expire? By Buenos Aires?
Last week I met with one of the authors of
draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case; he assured me that he will be working on
the document in short order. As you mentioned above, there is little
value in publishing the use cases *after* the solution.
What’ the value for bfd-seamless-base for waiting? Does it get better with age?
%sam - I take the ownership for cause of this delay. Let me revert back with
updated version.
The way forward is simple: I'll wait for draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case
before progressing all 3 base documents together. If the WG changes its
mind (about publishing draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case) then we will have
other options.
See above — wait indefinitely?
%sam - Have you tried your hands at MIB documents? :D
Net-net: I¹d recommend moving -base (and dependents) forward.
I want to point out that there are 5 authors *and* 5 contributors listed
in draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case (including 4 of the 5 authors of
draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base). I would hope that we could find more than
one person willing and able to complete the work -- and not depend on just
one.
Thanks!
Thank you!
Alvaro.
— Carlos.
[Ψ] https://youtu.be/ZCQ08Q-Nnn4?t=390
[A]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/kin3Me4WrKbe9WljhkSfkKvsefA
[B] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/minutes/minutes-94-bfd
