Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)

This sounds like a good summary of the tactical fix. (Although, like Les wrote down, saying “MUST follow [LSP-Ping]” is better than “MUST Send a Reply”) As an aside -- When it comes to Interop, I remember also issues around the UDP Port on the egress BFD Control packet, depending on whether the

Re: [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify-00.txt

Greg, This document seems to say “use “Do not Reply” reply mode, and even if you reply do not use the BFD Disc TLV, because it is not used. Wouldn’t it be simpler to say “follow RFC 8029, and the ingress does not care about the BFD Disc TLV in the reply”? This would not suddenly make uncomplian

Re: [mpls] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-03.txt

Dear Greg, Since there had been no responses to the few emails you had sent to the three lists (MPLS, SPRING, RTG-BFD) about various versions of this draft, here’s some high-level thoughts. I hope these are clear and useful. In this email you mention BFD as the Target WG, the document file name

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Dear Greg, It appears these comments are not addressed: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg03475.html Best, Sent from my iPad On Dec 15, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, attached please find diff and the new draft-ietf-bfd-mu

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Hi, Greg, It seems the comments regarding bfd.SessionType are not addressed: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg03475.html Thanks, Sent from my iPad On Dec 15, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, attached please find diffs and th

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

the name to bfd.SessionTopology. Greatly appreciate comments, suggestions. Let's make holiday presents to our AD! Regards, Greg On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi, Greg, It seems the comments regarding bfd.SessionType a

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7880 (5211)

As a co-author of RFC 7880, I disagree with the report below, and recommend Rejecting this Erratum. S-BFD uses the BFD state variables, and “bfd.SessionType” is applicable with finer granularity than “Not S-BFD”. Some details at. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/HxHT6Nxhpxot4baDag

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7880 (5211)

etworks doesn't seem as prudent approach. I'm open to suggestions of the better name for the new value of bfd.SessionType, other than SBFDNone. Regards, Greg On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: As a co-author of RFC 7880

Re: The BFD WG has placed draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi, I read through draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-06 and support its adoption as a BFD WG document. I do have some comments and questions, which might require follow-up but neither of which is blocking on adoption. These questions can be discussed by the WG after a potential adoption. 1. Referen

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

7 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> Cc: Jeffrey Haas mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>> Sub

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

nt and BFD Multipoint with active tails drafts (attached). Regards, Greg On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Reshad, Greg, Indeed, it seems the content of the section is updated, but the title is misleading. The same applies to the

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Hi, Greg, When looking for this specific sentence, I got a chance to scan through the document a bit. It seems to me there are still a number of editorials and potentially non-editorials to be fixed. Looking at S4.8 only: BFD packets received on tails for an IP multicast group MUST be c

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

these coarse set of comments. Please find my responses in-lined tagged GIM>>. More inline. Regards, Greg On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi, Greg, When looking for this specific sentence, I got a chance to scan throu

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

ase find my follow-up updates under GIM2>> tag. I've attached diff to highlight the changes. Regards, Greg On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi, Greg, On Feb 11, 2018, at 9:03 PM, Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@g

Re: [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify-00.txt

f.org>> on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 5:49 PM To: Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> Cc: "m...@ietf.org<ma

Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

Greg, Please find one late follow-up inline. On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:23 PM, Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: 8/ Incremental deployment Section 4.4.1. "New State Variable Values" defines bfd.SessionType = PointToPoint as well as a couple of Multipoint alternatives. Presumably th

Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

Jeff, On Jul 2, 2018, at 2:09 PM, Jeffrey Haas mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: Carlos, On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:17:20AM +, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: [...] I do not believe the question was whether S-BFD or any other protocol followed the behavior. It’s a question abou

Re: [mpls] (no subject)

Hi, Cc BFD WG It would be useful to understand the use case motivation or applicability of this draft, other than it can be done. I’m also increasingly concerned by confusing scope and definition of specifications. For example: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04#sectio

Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand

Xiao, Scanning through the draft, two questions: 1. What is the underlying mechanism to check liveness such that Demand can be used? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5880#section-6.6 Demand mode requires that some other mechanism is used to imply continuing connectivity between the two sys

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan, ending November 9

+1. Support publication as this is useful and technically sound. I do not understand why [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] is a Normative reference, or frankly a reference at all. I do not think there’s a need to reference every potential thin outside scope. Thanks, — Carlos Pignataro On Oct 22, 201

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan, ending November 9

t, and I agree that the sentence and thus the reference can be removed altogether. I'll check with other authors and will update the group accordingly. Regards, Greg On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:07 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: +1. Support publi

Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand

ind my answers in-line tagged GIM>>. Regards, Greg On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:04 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Xiao, Scanning through the draft, two questions: 1. What is the underlying mechanism to check liveness such that Demand can be used? http

Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand

Hi Xiao, Thanks much for the quick response! Please find my follow ups: 1. Sorry if I was not clear. Yes, RFC 5880 lists exemplary possible mechanisms to glean continued connectivity but requires the use of one. My question is: which mechanisms does this draft propose? Could it please be spell

Re: [mpls] MPLS WG adoption call for draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd

8 at 8:47 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi, Cc BFD WG It would be useful to understand the use case motivation or applicability of this draft, other than it can be done. GIM>> The motivation can be seen in the following (from another draft that

Re: [mpls] MPLS WG adoption call for draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd

Regards, Greg On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:11 AM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Greg, Many thanks for your response and suggestions! Please see inline. On Nov 2, 2018, at 6:13 AM, Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Carlos, thank yo

Re: [mpls] MPLS WG adoption call for draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd

y humble opinion, unsatisfactorily answered. Please find the new comments in-line tagged GIM3>>. Regards, Greg On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 8:52 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: [Greg, Loa, responding to both on this single email reply] Hi, Loa, On Nov 6, 201

Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07

afts may explore and define how the Echo mode of BFD is used over > VXLAN tunnels. > See above. > Will review and respond to the remaining questions soon. Thank you. The "remaining questions" are still all the questions below :-) Best, Carlos. > > Regards, > Gre

Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07

Hi, I have not reviewed this draft before, but triggered by this email, and briefly scanning through a couple of sections, it is unclear to me how some of the mechanics work. There are some major issues with the Mac usage and association, as Joel Halpern mentioned in his Rtg Dir review. And,

Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07

op as far as BFD is concerned (single hop VXLAN tunnel). Since RFC 5881 defines Echo for single hop, can you please elaborate (in the document) why is out of scope or how it can work? Best, Carlos. Will respond to other questions in a separate mail. Regards, Greg On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:31

Re: Level of standardization of the Echo mode of BFD [Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07]

Jun 20, 2019 at 11:09 AM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hello, Greg, Please see inline. On Jun 19, 2019, at 9:58 PM, Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Carlos, thank you for the expedient clarification. To your questions on demultip

Re: Level of standardization of the Echo mode of BFD [Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07]

ke the thread in a direction that diverges from resolution. I have not suggested that any document includes anything. My comment is: what is the reason why BFD Echo is out of scope? Technically, this is a single hop at the VXLAN level for BFD. Best, Carlos. > > Regards, > Greg >

Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07

Hi, Jeff, On Jul 1, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Jeffrey Haas mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: Carlos, On Jun 19, 2019, at 10:09 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: This packet loop may not be practical for several encapsulations and thus is out of sc

Re: Level of standardization of the Echo mode of BFD [Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07]

n RFC 5885, would that address your concern? > > Regards, > Greg > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:19 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > wrote: > Hello, Greg, > > Thank you for having split this thread. I’ll note for ease of tracking that > this specific issue is iss

Re: Level of standardization of the Echo mode of BFD [Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07]

n Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:35 AM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hello, Greg, Before you asked about RFC 5884, now RFC 5885, neither of which are references in draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07. Your new request is: > I hope that you can help me to answer a question re

Re: Draft agenda posted for IETF 105

Jeff, Reshad, > On Jul 18, 2019, at 12:12 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > Working Group, > > Here's the draft agenda for IETF 105. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/agenda-105-bfd > > Please note we are reserving the end of the session for discussion about BFD > v2. We are u

Re: Draft agenda posted for IETF 105

Jeff, > On Jul 22, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > [largely speaking as an individual contributor] > > Carlos, > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 01:44:46PM +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: >>> On Jul 18, 2019, at 12:12 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: &g

Re: BFD Echo mode coverage in BFD for VXLAN

Dear Greg, The option of replacing the existing text for something more ambiguous and implicit does not seem like progress in my humble opinion. The spec ends up with the same capabilities, but the text is more obscure. I do not support that option. My recommendation for your consideration wou

Re: BFD Echo mode coverage in BFD for VXLAN

ing some text, if WG decides that documenting the applicability of the Echo mode in BFD over VXLAN is useful? Regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com><mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Dear Greg, The option of replacing

Re: Progress draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed

Hello, Greg, Although there is no question in your message, let me reply with a different perspective. I find the creation of an Operational Considerations self-contained section to be a misguided approach, since this whole document should largely concern itself with operational considerations

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document, short and useful. I only have one comment in regards to: It is also worthy of note that even if an implementation can function with larger transport PDUs, that additional packet size may have impact on BFD scaling.

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Hi, Mahesh, On Sep 13, 2019, at 12:13 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Carlos, On Sep 12, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

/09/13 8:10、Jeffrey Haas のメール: > Carlos, > > >> On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) >> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document, >> short and useful. >> >> I only have one c

Re: IETF-106 agenda?

2019/11/01 午後4:27、Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>のメール: Hi Jeff, et al., I think that it will be of interest to the group to get an update on the draft-mirmin-bfd-extended. We've added details on the use of the Padding TLV. Also, would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the status

Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Éric, Regarding you first DISCUSS element, I had brought up the same issue. See the 2nd point at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/BL9Ob66Yxie4wX13yZJELbYPLJs Thanks, Carlos. 2019/12/17 午前3:51、Éric Vyncke via Datatracker mailto:nore...@ietf.org>>のメール: Éric Vyncke has entered

Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

19 at 05:17:11PM +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: > Hi, Éric, > > Regarding you first DISCUSS element, I had brought up the same issue. See the 2nd point at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/BL9Ob66Yxie4wX13yZJELbYPLJs > > Thanks, >

Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Jeff, > 2019/12/18 午後4:41、Jeffrey Haas のメール: > > Carlos, > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 09:28:30PM +, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: >> The TTL of 1 recommended for RFC 4379 / RFC 8029 S4.3 is because if the MPLS >> packet is mis-routed, or there's a

Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Jeff, > 2019/12/19 午後1:06、Jeffrey Haas のメール: > > Carlos, > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 03:22:28AM +, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: >>> 2019/12/18 午後4:41、Jeffrey Haas のメール: >>> But given that point, what precisely is the objection to the inner IP heade

Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Jeff, Thanks for the dailogue and please see inline some follow-ups. > 2019/12/19 午後3:38、Jeffrey Haas のメール: > > Carlos, > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:12:56PM +, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: >>> 2019/12/19 午後1:06、Jeffrey Haas のメール: > > Interes

Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-11.txt

Dear Greg, I have not checked the diff and the new text regarding the Eth MAC and mgmt VNI. However, these diffs also include a change that you did not mention: TTL / Hop Limit handling, which is one of the comments I had made. In that context, thank you very much! since this update partially (

Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-11.txt

and mgmt VNI. Assuming that was clear... helpful and constructive suggestions. Thanks. That was the intent, but only for the TTL/HL change. Please find my answers in-line tagged GIM>>. Regards, Greg On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:49 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: Dear Greg, I have not c

Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-11.txt

of sessions”? I would split that long sentence into two. * Acknowledgments Thank you. I'll thoroughly look through all the relevant discussion threads in the mail archive. Sounds good. Thanks, Carlos. Regards, Greg On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:52 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) ma

Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-12.txt

Thank you, Greg. I only looked at the update to the last paragraph of Section 6. Reading through the last paragraph of Section 6, the text is not fully clear. There are a few nits, including a missing article, /as long as/as well as/, /is/are/, and missing preposition which results in an incorr

S-BFD Document Status

Hi, BFD Chairs, The first set of S-BFD documents (-base, -ip, and -use-cases) have been stable for a while. Looking at the Milestones [1], the WG is past due on submitting these three documents to the IESG. There is a small mention of this in the end of the Minutes from Dallas, but nothing too

Re: WGLC-redeux for draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case (was Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case)

Definitely support progress of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case. No last-minute edits needed from my side. Thanks, — Carlos. > On May 4, 2015, at 8:20 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > Working Group, > > As of the prior last call, we were slightly short of support to progress the > document and li

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip

I support advancing this document to the IESG, and believe it is ready. As co-author, and as a co-statement with Dave Ward, we are not aware of any IPR relating to draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip other than what’s already been submitted. Thanks, — Carlos. > On May 4, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Jeffrey Haas

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base

I believe this document is very useful, ready, fulfilling a milestone, and therefore support its advancement. As author, I am not aware of any IPR relating to draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base beyond what’s already disclosed by Cisco. I also bring a similar statement from Dave Ward, who does not kno

Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications

Jeff, Late reply — I support advancing this document as it provides useful clarifications for RFC 5884. Thanks, — Carlos. > On May 4, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > The BFD mailing list has been quiet since shortly after IETF 92. We have a > number of documents that seem stable a

S-BFD Documents Progress?

Jeff, The first set of S-BFD documents finished WG LC about 2 months ago. However, they are still in “WG Doc” or “In WGLC” state, with no shepherd assigned and no write-up [1] [2] [3]; their related Milestones are months past due. What is the target timeline for submitting these to the IESG?

Re: S-BFD Documents Progress?

> On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > >> What is the target timeline for submitting these to the IESG? > > Likely the next day or so. Thank you, Jeff! — Carlos. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: S-BFD Documents Progress?

On Jul 30, 2015, at 22:04, Jeffrey Haas mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 06:30:03PM +, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Haas mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: What is the target timeline for submitting these to the I

Re: [Lime] Call for Adoption: draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-06

Hi, Mahesh, Please find one comment inline. > On Aug 26, 2015, at 9:56 PM, Qin Wu wrote: > > Hi, Mahesh: > -邮件原件- > 发件人: Lime [mailto:lime-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Mahesh Jethanandani > 发送时间: 2015年8月27日 5:11 > 收件人: Tom Taylor > 抄送: rtg-bfd@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org > 主题: Re: [Lime] Call for A

Re: Working group status

Jeff, In addition to this document that Loa points out, there are other related documents in other WGs: 02 Mar 2015 draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminatortxtpdf xml html 23 Jul 2015 draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator txtpdf xml html 23 Mar 2015 dr

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base

Hi, Alvaro, Thanks for your thorough review! Before the point-by-point response, I wanted to provide some perspective on a small subset of your comments: > On Sep 25, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) > wrote: > > As I mention in the review for draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip, please con

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip

Hi, Alvaro, > On Sep 25, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) > wrote: > > Please consider merging this document into draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base. Where have I heard this before? :-) In addition to my perspective on your review of the -base document, one additional datapoint: there is

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base

Hi, Alvaro, Thanks for your thorough review! Before the point-by-point response, I wanted to provide some perspective on a small subset of your comments: On Sep 25, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote: As I mention in the review for draft-ietf-bfd-seaml

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip

Alvaro, Thanks again — Closing the loop, please see inline. > On Sep 27, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) > wrote: > > On 9/27/15, 4:54 PM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Carlos: > > Hi! >> I

Re: Multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of end-points

Hi Reshad, It really depends on what is considered a “path” over which BFD detects faults, and how the initial demux can be done vs. bootstrapped out-of-band. RFC 5881 has the text quoted by Greg, because in that case single-hop initialization procedures can be done (by binding the interface to

Re: Multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of end-points

<mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> > Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 9:38 AM > To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>>, Reshad <mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> > Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>&q

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base

Alvaro, > On Dec 8, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > > On 12/6/15, 4:09 AM, "Santosh P K" wrote: > > Santosh: > > Hi! Thanks for picking up the pen on this one! > >> Thanks for your comments. Please see inline comments [SPK]. I have >> addressed rest of the comments from y

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base

> On Dec 8, 2015, at 9:40 AM, jh...@pfrc.org wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 02:36:29PM +, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: >> On 12/6/15, 4:09 AM, "Santosh P K" wrote: >> Unless I missed something, Carlos [1] didn't reply to #1: how are the use >> cases satisfied? I'm looking forward to a

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base

Thanks Alvaro for the response — please see inline. > On Dec 8, 2015, at 11:14 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) > wrote: > > On 12/8/15, 10:12 AM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> > wrote: > > Hi! > >> >>> On

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base

Hi! Happy New Year! I strongly agree with Les' perspective here, as that was also the way I was trying to write the spec. As we design a spec, it is important that we, simultaneously: 1. Provide future growth capability and forward compatibility, and not corner ourselves being too stringent

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base

Manav, Thanks for the discussion. Let's not cripple the spec before its out. Saying "let's update 5 RFCs when I understand the use case" is not forward compatibility and artificially constrain the spec :-) Please find some comments inline. Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base

Thanks Manav and Les, and sorry for the delay in pitching in. I like the proposal below with one difference: 1. Instead of removing, let's say it's for future study, leave the current use case but say this spec allows for one only. 2. And 3. Yes! Thanks! Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base

Thanks Manav! Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows On Dec 23, 2015, at 23:44, Manav Bhatia mailto:manavbha...@gmail.com>> wrote: > 1. Remove the multiple sessions terminating on the same target example from > the use-case document. > 2. Change the base s-bfd draft to onl

Re: PALS Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv-01

Thanks, Andy! I just uploaded a new revision which should address all the comments received and summarize all the discussion held. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv/ There's also a htmlized version available at: ht

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-08.txt

Hi, BFD WG, As part of the AD Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base , Alvaro provided a very thorough and most useful review — thanks much Alvaro! The full set of comments is at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/ms

Re: Advancing S-BFD

Álvaro, Thanks for the response! — please see inline. > On Mar 18, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) > wrote: > > On 3/18/16, 9:25 AM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" > wrote: > > Carlos: > > Hi! > >> BFD Group, chairs, Álvaro, >

Advancing S-BFD

BFD Group, chairs, Álvaro, Since BFD will not be meeting in IETF95 [1], I’m sending this message to the list attempting to understand the state, potential dependencies, and timing for advancing the S-BFD documents. Note that [1] says: “- S-BFD is done, AD comments being addressed.” Currently,

Re: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Alia, Thanks for your review and for bringing up these issues — please see inline. > On May 2, 2016, at 5:24 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intac

Re: Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-06: (with COMMENT)

Thanks, Alia! Will add a pointer. -Original Message- From: Alia Atlas Date: Monday, May 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM To: The IESG Cc: "draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-c...@ietf.org" , Alvaro Retana , "bfd-cha...@ietf.org" , Jeff Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ie

Re: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Alia, Thanks for the review and for these! Please see inline. > On May 2, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > ema

Re: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS)

Kathleen, > On May 2, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Manav Bhatia wrote: > > Hi Kathleen, > > DISCUSS: > -- > > This should be pretty easy to address. In the security consideration > section, the following recommendation appears: > > o

Re: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS)

Hi, Kathleen, > On May 2, 2016, at 8:34 PM, kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for the quick responses. See inline > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 2, 2016, at 8:04 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wro

Re: Replace "seamless" with "stateless"

I'm with Les -- that ship has sailed almost exactly two years ago, when we had a most thorough and lengthy discussion about it: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg02051.html I, for one, use "S-BFD" (as there are really many fitting qualifiers that start with "S". The docs e

Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-06: (with COMMENT)

Thank you for this comment, Mirja. You have a good point, we will add it. Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows > On May 3, 2016, at 03:50, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-06: No

Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS)

Manav, A router not configured for S-BFD can be more likely to receive S-BFD packets. We can call that out. Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows On May 3, 2016, at 05:43, Manav Bhatia mailto:ma...@ionosnetworks.com>> wrote: Hi Mirja, -

Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, Thanks for the question, please see inline. Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows > On May 3, 2016, at 05:46, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: No Objection > > When resp

Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS)

Hi, Mirja, What is an uncontrolled packet in an IP network, and what entity controls controlled ones? :-) More seriously, please see inline. > On May 3, 2016, at 5:35 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-0

Re: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

x27;ll clear my discuss assuming that you will submit the updated version very > very soon. > > Regards, > Alia > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: > Hi, Alia, > > Thanks for the response! &

Re: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

less BFD Base May 2016 - - Dave Ward Cisco Systems, Inc. @@ -1143,34 +1117,4 @@ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Akiya, et al. Expires November 3, 2016 [Page 21] +Akiya, et al. Expires November 3, 2016

Re: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: (with DISCUSS)

30 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > Thanks for the review and for these! Please see inline. > > > On May 2, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Alia Atlas

Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS)

Hi, Mirja, > On May 3, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > >> Am 03.05.2016 um 15:40 schrieb Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) >> : >> >> Hi, Mirja, >> >> What is an uncontrolled packet in an IP

Re: Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Ben, Many thanks for this review and raising these issues, please see inline. > On May 3, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact a

Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS)

Thanks much for the response, Mirja! I think we are converging, please see inline. > On May 4, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > see below. > >> Am 03.05.2016 um 19:24 schrieb Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) >> : >> &

Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS)

Hi, Mirja, > On May 4, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > below. > >> Am 04.05.2016 um 16:33 schrieb Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) >> : >> >> Thanks much for the response, Mirja! >> >> I think we

Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: (with DISCUSS)

Hi, Mirja, > On May 4, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > >> Am 04.05.2016 um 17:13 schrieb Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) >> : >> >> Hi, Mirja, >> >>> On May 4, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind

Re: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-10: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for the review, Suresh! Please see inline. > On May 4, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Suresh Krishnan > wrote: > > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all

Re: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-05: (with COMMENT)

Hi Suresh, 🎂🎼🎉 Please see inline. > On May 4, 2016, at 10:42 PM, Suresh Krishnan > wrote: > > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-05: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email address

Re: Problematic text in RFC 5882

Hi Sasha, That’s correct, an editorial mis-expansion of the acronym LSP. It should be “Link State Packet”. Thanks, — Carlos. On Sep 20, 2016, at 4:27 AM, Alexander Vainshtein mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> wrote: Hi all, I have found the following problematic text in Section 10.1

  1   2   >