Thank you, Jeff, for pointing me in the right direction. Regards, Greg
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:03 AM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg, > > You may find the official liaison response here in the archives: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/vw31qO1UpD7epoZKXT8_obmY64A/ > > The contents of that response are: > > From: Dave Sinicrope <[email protected]> > <<[email protected]>> > To: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>,Reshad <<[email protected]>,Reshad> > Rahman <[email protected]> <<[email protected]>> > Cc: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>,John > <<[email protected]>,John> Scudder <[email protected]>,Martin > <<[email protected]>,Martin> Vigoureux <[email protected]>,Dave > <<[email protected]>,Dave> Sinicrope > <[email protected]>,Jeffrey > <<[email protected]>,Jeffrey> Haas <[email protected]>,Reshad > <<[email protected]>,Reshad> Rahman <[email protected]>,Bidirectional > <<[email protected]>,Bidirectional> Forwarding Detection Discussion List > <[email protected]> <<[email protected]>> > Response Contacts: > Technical Contacts: > Purpose: For information > > Body: The BBF thanks the IETF BFD WG for informing us of important work on > the BFD Echo. > > We wanted to clarify the "overlapping use case with TR-146". TR-146 leverages > BFD Echo as a connectivity check mechanism. It does so in a manner where the > peer does not need a full BFD implementation to echo the packet received. In > our opinion, no future standardization is required to support TR-146. There > is no current interest in revising TR-146 to leverage the enhancement of the > BFD protocol. > We noted in the BBF community that those interested in participating should > do so in the IETF BFD WG. > > Sincerely, > > Lincoln Lavoie, > Broadband Forum Technical Committee Chair > > > > On Apr 5, 2023, at 7:36 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Dave, Jeff, et al., > I was looking for the BFD WG liaison to BBF and its response. I appreciate > it if you help me to find out what was the BBF response, as the > draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo is in the WG LC. > > Thank you in advance. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:05 AM David Sinicrope < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Jeff, (Sorry for bouncing around email addresses on you… IT challenges >> this week) >> >> Thanks for clarifying the assertion concerning BBF interest. Still, >> given the statement in the adoption call and the clear references to TR-146 >> in the draft, it would be a good idea to liaise to BBF, even if brief, and >> let them know of the draft and its relation to TR-146. It certainly >> couldn’t hurt to have open communication with them on the subject. >> >> Regarding your check with the IESG on the liaison - please proceed as you >> deem appropriate. I will say, (and apologies if I’m stating well known >> details) that typically liaisons don’t need IESG approval. They are >> normally crafted/drafted by the WG Chairs, and have some level of review >> and approval by the WG(s) in question or impacted. >> >> I hope this helps find the most expeditious and effective way to proceed. >> Thanks, >> Dave >> >> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:38 Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> David, >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:18:38PM +0000, David Sinicrope wrote: >>> > Sorry, I don't recall our discussion, but then it would have been as >>> long ago as Singapore in Nov 2019 or before. >>> > (Is it possible you spoke with Dave Allan?) >>> >>> That's possible! As I noted in the thread, my notes from that lunch are >>> missing. (I have strong words for Microsoft about their support for Mac >>> mail, but that's a different story.) Whomever I had a conversation with >>> it >>> was in a subterranean warren of lunch venues. Perhaps that will jar >>> someone's memory of the venue. >>> >>> If you have contact info for Dave Allen I can certainly followup with >>> him. >>> >>> > I can say as the BBF Liaison Manager there have been many past claims >>> of >>> > BBF interest in IETF work without substantiation. As a result, it has >>> > been key to ensure that any statement of BBF interest in IETF work, >>> > especially if made to encourage action in the IETF, be formally >>> supported >>> > via a liaison. Searching the Liaison Statements in >>> > Datatracker<https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/>, I don't see a >>> liaison >>> > from either the BBF or IETF related to this work. >>> >>> Please note that I don't believe we're asserting that BBF is interested >>> in >>> IETF in doing this work for BBF. And perhaps the easiest answer we'll >>> converge to is "remove all mention of BBF". >>> >>> That said, throughout the discussion that lead to this draft, it was >>> pointed >>> out to the original authors that they were largely covering the TR-146 >>> use >>> case. Minimally, making sure we have a BBF statement regarding the IETF >>> work may make sense. >>> >>> > Also, to the best of my knowledge, the issues that this draft addresses >>> > have not been raised in BBF. E.g., a proposal for revision to TR-146 or >>> > related documents. >>> >>> I am not a participant in BBF and have no knowledge of any such >>> communications one way or the other. Informally, the discussions I have >>> been involved in both with the BFD draft in question and in prior >>> contexts >>> at my employer have mostly been that the BBF procedures are somewhat >>> inspecific and cleaner documented procedures for the use case are >>> desired. >>> >>> > Given the stated overlap and application of the draft to TR-146 (in >>> the adoption call), >>> [...] >>> > I would suggest that a liaison be crafted and sent to the BBF formally >>> > notifying them of this work and inquiring as to the interest in the >>> > content of the draft. Fortunately, the next BBF meeting where such a >>> > liaison would be addressed and responded to is 29 Nov - 3 Dec 2021. >>> The >>> > sooner the liaison is sent, the more likely a timely response coming >>> out >>> > of this upcoming meeting. >>> >>> I think we could make such a deadline. I'll start discussion with our >>> AD to >>> see what the IESG will want for the liaison statement. >>> >>> Meanwhile, I'll see if I can contact Dave Allen to try to get >>> clarification >>> of what we discussed over lunch - if it was him. >>> >>> -- Jeff >>> >> -- >> David Sinicrope >> [email protected] >> > >
