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

ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: Multiple BFD sessions between the same pair of end-points Reshad, On Nov 2, 2015, at 9:29 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> wrote:

WG adoption of draft-mahesh-bfd-authentication

Hi all, This document has passed adoption as BFD WG document. Usual practice would be to resubmit as draft-ietf-bfd-authentication, however that could be a bit confusing. How about draft-ietf-bfd-authentication-optimization or draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication? Regards, Jeff & Reshad.

IETF 95

Hello Working Group, Here is the BFD WG work on which we need to make progress. There doesn't appear to be a need to meet based on this, does anyone have agenda items that requires in-person discussion? - BFD multipoint. Needs WG feedback. - S-BFD is done, AD comments being addressed. - BFD

Re: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces

Hi Greg, With the proposal in the draft won’t you need a change to indicate that the link-local multicast address should be used? Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd > on behalf of Gregory Mirsky

Re: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces

+1 Reshad (as individual contributor). From: Rtg-bfd > on behalf of Ashesh Mishra > Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 6:44 PM To: Gregory Mirsky

Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt

Since BGP may be used to exchange discriminators for EVPN also, would it make sense to have a sepaarte BESS draft just for BFD discriminator exchange? Regards, Reshad. On 2016-07-21, 2:46 PM, "BESS on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of rrah

Re: Correcting BFD Echo model

es in the YANG model specifying both input and output parameters. There are no operations to be had here. And the definition and desired behavior of desired-min-echo-tx-interval is not very different from required-min-echo-x-interval. It is as the definition says, a configuration parameter that

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-05.txt

ally happens. No discussions on this. We¹ll have to discuss. What is tricky with this is that some implementations support different timer ranges based on ³path-type². E.g. 5 ms mayb be supported for single-hop but for multi-hop the minimum could be 150 ms. Regards, Reshad. > >

Re: Correcting BFD Echo model

I am familiar with an implementation which supports echo and reduces rate of control packets when echo is enabled. In that implementation, the configuration has desired interval and multiplier, there isn¹t different timer configurations for async and echo. Echo is enabled by default but there is

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-05.txt

Main changes from rev 04 are: - Removed augment of network-instance, added reference to schema-mount - bfd is not top-level anymore, augments control-plane-protocol from RFC8022 - Addeds section on Interaction with other YANG modules Regards, BFD YANG authors. On 2017-03-10, 4:26 PM, "Rtg-bfd

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt

groupings. >Fewer similar grouping and modules will be better ;^) > >Thanks, >Acee > >On 7/27/17, 9:03 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: > >>Hi Acee, >> >>What I see @ >>https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/ietf-bfd-yang

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt

. I'll get ospf part done this weekend. > >Thanks, >Yingzhen > >-Original Message- >From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] >Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 8:56 AM >To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com>; Yingzhen Qu ><yingzhen...@huawei.com>; Jef

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt

I am gradually catching up to emails so I may not have absorbed all the emails I have gone through yetŠ. Regarding echo config, we agreed in Chicago to remove the echo config based on the fact that implementations of echo are vendor specific. e.g. An implementation which has echo as continuous

Re: A question about RFC5884

Hi, My take too is that the RFC is pretty clear that Echo reply from egress LSR is not mandatory. Regards, Reshad. On 2017-07-16, 4:29 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Mach Chen" wrote: >Hi Ashesh, > >Thanks for your prompt response,

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt

ote: >Hi Reshad, > >Thanks for the summary. > >Both ospf and isis models will make corresponding changes when the new >BFD grouping is available. > >Thanks, >Yingzhen > >-Original Message- >From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrah...@cisco.com] >Sent

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt

bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms >isn’t pushed to GitHub yet. This version >https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/ietf-bfd-yang/blob/master/src/yang/ietf-bfd- >t >ypes.yang only has the enabled leaf. > > >Thanks, >Acee > > >> >>Regards, >>Reshad. >> >

Re: Adoption call for draft-sonal-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers (ending April 30, 2017)

Support (as individual contributor). On 2017-04-17, 5:35 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" wrote: >Working Group, > >As part of our discussion at the Working Group session at IETF 98 in >Chicago, Sonal Agarwal presented "Secure BFD Sequence Numbers"

Re: Adoption call for draft-ashesh-bfd-stability (ends April 30, 2017)

Support (as individual contributor). On 2017-04-17, 5:39 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" wrote: >Working Group, > >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ashesh-bfd-stability-05 > >The authors of BFD Stability

Re: 回复： Adoption call for draft-sonal-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers (ending April 30, 2017)

Mahesh, should that be added to draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication? From: Rtg-bfd > on behalf of LuHuang > Reply-To: LuHuang > Date: Monday,

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt

gt;>groupings. >> Fewer similar grouping and modules will be better ;^) >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On 7/27/17, 9:03 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> >>wrote: >> >>> Hi Acee, >>> >>> Wh

Re: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration

We started off with the intent of having BFD parameters in the applications/protocols which make use of BFD. For timer/multiplier this is pretty straight-forward, although the discussion of what to do when not all applications have the same BFD parameters for the same session (e.g. Go with

Re: Adoption call for draft-ashesh-bfd-stability (ends April 30, 2017)

Hi authors, This document has passed adoption as BFD WG document. Please re-submit your draft as draft-ietf-bfd-stability. Regards, Reshad & Jeff. On 2017-04-17, 5:39 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" wrote: >Working Group, >

Re: Adoption call for draft-sonal-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers (ending April 30, 2017)

Hi authors, This document has passed adoption as BFD WG document. Please re-submit your draft as draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers. Regards, Reshad & Jeff. On 2017-04-17, 5:35 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" wrote: >Working Group, > >As part of our discussion at the Working Group

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)

lt;mailto:mach.c...@huawei.com>>; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>>; Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> Cc: Tom Nadeau <tnad...@lucidvision.com<mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>&g

Re: Last Call: (A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)) to Proposed Standard

com> Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 11:31 AM To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman); i...@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-...@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org; rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last Call: (A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)) to Proposed Standard Hi

Re: Last Call: (A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)) to Proposed Standard

<xufeng_...@jabil.com> Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 4:50 PM To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman); i...@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-...@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org; rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last Call: (A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)) to Proposed St

Re: Last Call: (YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)) to Proposed Standard

Hi Tom, Thanks for the review. I will add the missing reference statements, I believe this was just an oversight because there are/were no RFC numbers for these imported modules (there is now for ietf-routing). So I will add the usual RFC XXX with a note for the RFC Editor. Regards, Reshad.

Re: Last Call: (YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)) to Proposed Standard

, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: Hi Tom, Thanks for the review. I will add the missing reference statements, I believe this was just an oversight because there are/were no RFC numbers for these imported modules (there is now for ietf-routing). So I will add the usu

Re: IETF102 BFD WG agenda items

Deadline for draft agendas is July 4th, so please send requests for agenda items by July 2nd. Regards, Reshad. From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Date: Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:34 AM To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Cc: "bfd-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: IETF102 BFD WG age

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Hi Greg, I am fine with the change below. Regards, Reshad. From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 2:20 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com>, Je

IPR poll for multipoint drafts

All, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint and draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail? Specifically, if you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this email (reply-to-all)

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

The changes for bfd.SessionType (it’s not a new state variable but uses what’s defined in RFC7880) weren’t made in the latest revision. Greg, do you plan on addressing this soon? Or there’s no consensus on this topic yet? Regards, Reshad. On 2017-12-20, 12:09 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

, 2018 at 6:17 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

mir...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 11:01 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Sub

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

session/However to indicate a change in the packets, MultipointHead sessions MUST send packets with the P bit set. MultipointTail sessions/ Please see inline . Regards, Reshad. From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 4:46 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrah

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

@pfrc.org> Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round) Hi Jeff, Reshad, et. al, I agre

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

missing in the document or whether it’s just lack of understanding on my part. Regards, Reshad. From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 9:25 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" &l

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

the shepherd write-up. So you don’t have to push these changes immediately, you can wait for the review, up to you. Regards, Reshad. From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 1:47 AM To: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Cc: &

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

2=draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-13 Will respond to your comments on the Active Tails shortly. Regards, Greg On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: > Greg, these changes are good with me. &g

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Thanks Greg. PSI . I think we’ve closed on these comments. Regards, Reshad. From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Date: Friday, January 26, 2018 at 7:42 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.

Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09

Christian, thank you for the review. Regarding the concern expressed below, the alarm is issued at the other end via the Notifications (section 2.3). Regards, Reshad. On 2018-02-01, 5:39 PM, "Christian Huitema" wrote: Reviewer: Christian Huitema Review result:

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

e addition is taking place (e.g. at the end). GIM>> - 7 Security Considerations. Should we add at the beginning “The same security considerations as those described in [RFC5880] and [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] apply to this document.”? GIM>> Agree. On W

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

. From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 10:23 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com>, "rtg-bf

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Hi Greg, I would go with normative SHOULD. What you proposed below is fine. Regards, Reshad. From: "gregory.mir...@ztetx.com" <gregory.mir...@ztetx.com> Date: Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:33 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

x.com" <gregory.mir...@ztetx.com> Date: Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:18 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Cc: "gregimir...@gmail.com" <gregimir...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Mu

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Greg, I agree “MUST use” doesn’t read well. s/use/expect/ is good with me. Regards, Reshad. From: "gregory.mir...@ztetx.com" <gregory.mir...@ztetx.com> Date: Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 12:14 AM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: "rtg-bfd

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

D Options does provide reasonable explanation of use of MultipointClient state. What do you think? Regards, Greg On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Please see inlin

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

Hi Ravi, There is indeed lots of common information and this was addressed by using groupings. I am not sure I understand the suggestion to use submodules. A submodule can belong to only 1 module (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-5.1) so I do not see how using submodules would help

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Greg, this is good. Regards, Reshad. From: "gregory.mir...@ztetx.com" <gregory.mir...@ztetx.com> Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 11:58 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "gregim

Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09

Right, schema-mount can be used in some cases (logical device or in a VRF) but doesn’t have to be used in other cases (e.g. network device which doesn't support VRFs). We will clarify the text, at a certain time we incorrectly thought that schema mount had to be used in all cases. Regards,

Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09

routing)? Thanks, Acee On 2/17/18, 1:24 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: Right, schema-mount can be used in some cases (logical device or in a VRF) but doesn’t have to be used in other cases (e.g. network device which doesn

Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09

Thanks, Acee On 2/17/18, 5:26 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: Ietf-bfd augments the ietf-routing model, that's not conditional. How the ietf-bfd model is used may vary: 1) It may be used "directly" in a device (i.e no schema

Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-bfd-yang

Hi Qin, Thank you for the review, please see inline. From: Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com> Date: Friday, February 23, 2018 at 1:58 AM To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com>

Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09

Hi Jürgen, Thank you for the review, response inline. On 2018-02-15, 4:35 AM, "Jürgen Schönwälder" wrote: Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder Review result: Not Ready Review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09.txt. * General comments

IETF 102 - BFD draft minutes

BFD WG, The draft minutes have been uploaded, please review them. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-102-bfd/ Regards, Reshad & Jeff.

Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Benjamin and Jeff, Following our discussion in Montreal, would the following, or something along these lines, be OK with you in the Security Considerations section. When BFD clients are used to modify BFD configuration (as described in Section 2.1), any authentication and authorization

Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Kaduk wrote: > > Hi Reshad, > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:16:05AM +, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: >> Hi Benjamin and Jeff, >> >> Following our discussion in Montreal, would the following, or something along these lines, be OK w

Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Revision 17 has been uploaded. On 2018-08-01, 5:28 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: I'm integrating Benjamin's proposal in the next rev. Regards, Reshad. On 2018-07-30, 4:45 PM, "PFFC JHAAS" wrote: Benjamin,

Re: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alissa, Regarding your comment below on 2.12, I looked at the 4 IANA modules @ https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml: iana-if-type, iana-crypt-hash, iana-routing-types and iana-hardware (from the 4 RFCs you listed below) and they all seem to be using ICANN.

Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with COMMENT)

Inline . From: Eric Rescorla Date: Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 8:46 AM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Cc: The IESG , Jeffrey Haas , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org" , "bfd-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection o

Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

sual, it was more of a concern in the more subtle use cases for BFD-on-LAG where links may be managed by one provisioning group and protocols by another. -- Jeff > On Jul 11, 2018, at 10:31 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > > Hi Acee, > > That

Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 03:20:42AM +, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > > I am not 100% sure I understand the point being made. Is it a question of underlying the importance of having the IGPs authenticated since the IGPs can create/destroy B

Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Warren, Thanks for the review. In your example below +--ro number-of-sessions (10) +--ro number-of-sessions-up (2) +--ro number-of-sessions-down (5) +--ro number-of-sessions-admin-down (3) There is a description on Page 37

Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Regarding bfd.SilentTail, I am wondering if instead it should be removed from MP draft (always 1 in there) and kept as new state variable in active-tail? Regards, Reshad. From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 9:32 AM To: &

Re: IPR declarations for draft-ietf-bfd-yang

I am not aware of any IPR for this document. On 2018-03-06, 9:40 AM, "Jeffrey Haas" wrote: As part of the shepherd writeup, we're required to confirm whether or not there are any IPR disclosures on the BFD Yang module. Authors, please respond to this thread,

Re: Comments on Optimizing BFD Authentication

Yes looks like we’ll have to do a bis. Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani Date: Monday, April 2, 2018 at 8:47 AM To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" ,

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

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

draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd

Hi Greg, Is the goal to be adopted by BFD WG (the draft says BFD Working Group)? If so, it should be renamed to draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-p2mp. OTOH I don’t see any proposed BFD changes in this draft, so is this targeted for MPLS WG? Thanks, Reshad.

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

Hi, While I agree that the echo reply is not needed to bootstrap BFD, and that the BFD Disc TLV is not needed in the reply, doing this doesn’t break anything. So I don’t see the proposed changes as being necessary. Does anyone remember why RFC5884 has the echo reply, was it to potentially

Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09

Hi Jurgen, We have made the changes in revs 10 and 11 to address your comments . The exception is module ietf-bfd-types which did not get renamed per reason below. Regards, Reshad. On 2018-02-25, 11:28 AM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: Hi,

Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-bfd-yang

Hi Qin, We have made changes in revs 10 and 11 to address YD comments and WGLC comments from yourself. Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Date: Friday, February 23, 2018 at 6:43 PM To: Qin

Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09

-02-23, 11:53 AM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: Hi Jürgen, Thank you for the review, response inline. On 2018-02-15, 4:35 AM, "Jürgen Schönwälder" <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: Reviewer: J

Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

these discussions. Regards, Reshad. From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Date: Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 8:36 PM To: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: RE: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets Naiming -

BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

Hello BFD WG, We have received an adoption request for “BFD encapsulated in large packets”. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haas-bfd-large-packets/ The adoption call will end on Friday Nov 9th. Please send email to the list indicating “yes/support” or “no/do not support”. If you do

Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

Yes/support. Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 9:06 PM To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets Hello BFD WG, We have received an adoption request for “BFD e

Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

Hi Les, I still don’t understand what you’re referring to as BFD clients and how they could have different MTU limitations. Are you referring to application data? Regards, Reshad (no hat). From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Date: Monday, October 22, 2018 at 4:40 PM To: "Reshad

Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

Hi, Inline . On 2018-10-25, 11:38 AM, "Jeffrey Haas" wrote: Les, I *think* the following text is yours. On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:36:52AM +, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > [Les:] So, this has some implications: > > We have both a transmit

Re: Feedback on draft-hu-bier-bfd-02

And now adding the BFD alias. From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 10:54 AM To: "draft-hu-bier-...@ietf.org" Cc: "b...@ietf.org" , "b...@ietf.org" Subject: Feedback on draft-hu-bier-bfd-02 Hi, I just took a quick

Re: Feedback on draft-hu-bier-bfd-02

Thanks Greg and Fangwei. As discussed in BIER meeting, please add a reference to draft-xiong-bier-resilience. Regards, Reshad. From: Greg Mirsky Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 12:18 PM To: "hu.fang...@zte.com.cn" Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , "draft-hu-bier

BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

to the BFD session failing when expected MTU isn’t met). My take on this is that it falls out of our charter but the PMTUD use-case should be considered if/when we recharter, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)&qu

IETF104 - BFD draft minutes

BFD WG, The draft minutes have been uploaded: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-104-bfd/ Please review them and submit any proposed changes to the minutes by April 12th. Regards, Reshad and Jeff.

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

Monday, February 18, 2019 at 1:03 PM To: Jeffrey Haas Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , Martin Vigoureux , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand Hi Jeff, here's the text from the draft that describes the behavior on the BFD system:

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

Hi Greg, Please see inline. From: Rtg-bfd on behalf of Greg Mirsky Date: Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:40 PM To: Jeffrey Haas Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand Hi Jeff, now with GI

BFD presentation requests @ IETF105 Montreal

BFD WG, We will be meeting at IETF 105 in Montreal. Please send presentation requests to the chairs. Regards, Reshad & Jeff.

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-01.txt

- YANG update allow->enable which was discussed at IETF104 - Added 8174 on top of 2119 - Added YANG-related considerations in Security section. Comments welcome. Regards, Reshad. On 2019-06-28, 4:01 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A New Internet-Draft is

Re: BFD Echo mode coverage in BFD for VXLAN

Hi all, It is up to the WG to decide whether echo support is desired for BFD over VxLAN (any other BFD use-cases also). Since this hasn’t been brought up in the WG before, my take is that the WG isn’t interested in having echo for BFD over VxLAN. So if anybody feels that we need echo support,

Re: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-01

Thanks Martin and Mahesh. I believe we should add a mandatory statement to the choic (speaking as BFD YANG co-author,) Just created https://github.com/bfd-wg Regards, Reshad. On 2019-08-19, 2:45 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" wrote: [Adding the authors of BFD YANG module] Martin

Re: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-01

:18 PM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: > Thanks Martin and Mahesh. > > I believe we should add a mandatory statement to the choic (speaking > as BFD YANG co-author,) But then it is not clear why all

IETF105 - BFD minutes

Updated minutes have been uploaded. Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 12:41 PM To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: IETF105 - BFD draft minutes BFD WG, The draft minutes have been uploaded: https://data

Re: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-01

If procedures permit it (I'm unclear on the detail), does it make sense to pull the BFD yang module for a fix from the editor queue? -- Jeff On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:31:27PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > I was looking at an old copy of the doc which didn'

WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

BFD WG, As was mentioned at IETF105, this document is stable and there was an interop test done between FRR and Junos VMX. Please provide comments/feedback on the document. The deadline for last call is September 13th. Regards, Reshad & Jeff.

IPR poll for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

BFD WG, authors, contributors, We have started WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets and need to do an IPR poll. This mail starts the IPR poll. Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets? If you are aware of a relevant IPR, please state whether this IPR has been

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

BFD WG, reminder that WGLC is ongoing for this document. Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets BFD WG, As was mentioned at IE

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-02

Thanks Jeff and Albert. I will go through the various discussion points and will review the latest rev. Regards, Reshad. On 2019-11-01, 11:49 AM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" wrote: Working Group, This version attempts to roll up all discussion points to date. Your

FW: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings

BFD WG, please fill out the survey if you haven’t already. Regards, Reshad. From: WGChairs on behalf of Alissa Cooper Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7:49 AM To: IETF WG Chairs Subject: Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings Please circulate this to your working

Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16 August, 2020)

Indeed, draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited was informational and with the addition of the YANG module draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicted was changed to standards track. Regards, Reshad (no hat). From: Rtg-bfd on behalf of Robert Raszuk Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 5:44 AM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"

Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16 August, 2020)

: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 9:01 PM To: Robert Raszuk , "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" , "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , Martin Vigoureux Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16 August, 2020) IMHO - It isn’t right

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt

On 2020-08-21, 5:57 AM, "tom petch" wrote: From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) Sent: 20 August 2020 18:42 I had noticed the lsps vs lsps-state, mentioned it at last BFD WG meeting and have been in touch with the teas-yang authors. I hadn't noticed that mpls:enabled had be

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt

I had noticed the lsps vs lsps-state, mentioned it at last BFD WG meeting and have been in touch with the teas-yang authors. I hadn't noticed that mpls:enabled had been removed. I'll have to go through all MPLS-related items in the BFD yang. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-08-20, 12:33 PM, "t

Re: [Bier] : New Version Notification for draft-hu-bier-bfd-06.txt

+ BFD alias. Regards, Reshad. From: BIER on behalf of Greg Mirsky Date: Monday, May 4, 2020 at 12:40 PM To: "xiong.q...@zte.com.cn" Cc: "liuc...@chinaunicom.cn" , "huf...@gmail.com" , BIER WG , BIER WG Chairs Subject: Re: [Bier] : New Version Notification for draft-hu-bier-bfd-06.txt Hi

  1   2   >