[Speaking as an individual contributor.] On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:20:11AM +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: > S-BFD currently specified for p2p but I don't see a reason why S-BFD cannot > be applied to p2mp cases. So, for a BFD node that supports both RFC 7880 and > draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint values of variables may be SBFDInitiator and > PointToPoint. And, at some time, there will be interest to define behavior of > the SBFDInitiator/MultipointHead and SBFDReflector/MultipointTail > combinations. > > Thus I see this issue as name conflict that can be resolved by changing the > name in draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-* to something other than bfd.SessionType. > Perhaps we can change the name to bfd.SessionTopology.
I concur with Carlos. This really isn't a topology, simply a session type. (And one that is core to even the original BFD spec, albeit simply a bit that wasn't well defined!) I also agree that the solution to permitting S-BFD with multipoint is to simply have a value that expresses that combination. At this point, S-BFD with multipoint is undefined. At this point it is also worth noting that the session type has no centralized location covering their enumerations. This leads to two interesting observations: - We could have an IANA registry for such things. However, I'm not sure this is really need. But this also means: - Here's another case why some pieces of the BFD yang module likely shoudl be IANA maintained. In this case, the bfd-path-type identity as the relevant example. -- Jeff
