Thank you, Greg. While I was in the process of responding to a similar inquiry from Joel Halpern I was about to comment that I believe I had discussion with David about this proposal over lunch at an IETF.
The items that made it into formal IETF record for bfd unaffiliated: This work was originally presented in IETF 106. There was a note about checking on IPR considerations: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-106-bfd/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-106-bfd/> The adoption call thread was here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/iHmoi-VS1bRn8_m7OdSbJ3mdPMg/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/iHmoi-VS1bRn8_m7OdSbJ3mdPMg/> My lunch discussion with David did not make it into any formal minutes. That's likely a mistake. Let's see what David recalls from that discussion. -- Jeff > On Nov 18, 2021, at 10:10 AM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Adding BBF Liaison officer David Sinicrope to the discussion. > > I have a question regarding the BBF's interest in this work. > Had IETF and the BFD WG received an official liaison from BBF regarding its > interest in standardizing the mechanism mentioned in TR-146? If not, how the > BFD WG has concluded that BBF has any interest in that work? > > Regards, > Greg > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 6:29 AM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I owe the commenters in this thread a detailed response in the near future. > However, I did want to highlight the underlying motivation the Working Group > had to pick up this work. > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 05:00:09PM +0800, [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > As you may have known or not, before this draft was posted, we ever tried > > to submit an errata instead of an I-D. However, under the direction of the > > responsible AD and WG chairs, we realized that an informational draft > > might be the proper way to record our implementation and deployment. And > > then, during the adoption poll of this draft, there was rough consensus > > that this draft should be adopted as standards track document, so we > > changed the intended status from informational to standards track. > > A core motivation for this work is to provide an IETF standardized profile > of what is typically shipped as Broadband Forum (BBF) TR-146. That > mechanism, effectively running a BFD-aware system with a system that does > NOT implement BFD but able to provide BFD Echo loopback mode. Arguably, > this is one step better than running ping and significantly better from a > monitoring standpoint since BFD machinery can be leveraged on the side that > supports it for creating events. > > TR-146 wasn't as clearly specified as we tend to like in IETF BFD work, so > we're doing a flavor of that here. > > Prior discussion with our AD of the time suggested that this is targeted > toward Standards Track. But like all IETF work, once we've completed the > draft, we may consider whether that classification remains correct. > > -- Jeff
