Thanks, Reshad. Since the majority of the content is nits, Greg can simply address them as Editor.
The Security Considerations issues raised in the base spec may deserve a bit more explicit Working Group discussion: : The shepherd has concerns wrt security: : a) We should have the ability, e.g. via configuration, to prevent the number : of MultipointTail sessions from exceeding the number of expected streams. : Otherwise 1 misbehaving head could use up all the MultipointTail session : resources on a tail. : b) A misbehaving head which changes My Discriminator for a MultipointHead : session will cause tails to create many MultipointTail sessions (4.13.2). We : should consider adding a check to see if we have a MultipointTail session : based on source address and the identify of the multipoint tree with a : different discriminator? -- Jef On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:42:02PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > Hi, > > I forgot to mention that last week I did the shepherd write-up for both > drafts. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint/shepherdwriteup/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail/shepherdwriteup/ > > Regards, > Reshad. > > From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@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> > Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round) > > Hi Reshad, > sorry for my sloppiness. Fixed. > > Regards, Greg > > On Jan 16, 2018 7:05 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" > <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > In 4.4.1 of MP, “A number values of the state variable are added to the…”, > looks like there is a missing “of”? > > For the active-tail draft I haven’t completed my review of -06 yet: there are > parts which aren’t clear to me and I don’t know yet if this is because > there’s something missing in the document or whether it’s just lack of > understanding on my part. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> > Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 9:25 PM > To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> > Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" > <cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>>, Jeffrey Haas > <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>>, > "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" > <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round) > > Hi Reshad, et. al, > the attached are diff to highlight updates to BFD in Multipoint Network and > the working copy of Active Tails. After checking through the Active Tails > draft, I've found no additional changes to make resulting from removing all > references to bfd.SilentTail from BFD in Multipoint Networks draft. Your > review and comments are most welcome. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Greg Mirsky > <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi Reshad, > thank you. I'll add it into the working version to others updates. I believe > changes to active tails be more extensive as now it must introduce the > bfd.SilentTail variable, not just its new state. Will work on that now. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) > <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > I am fine with the change below. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> > Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 2:20 PM > To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> > Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" > <cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>>, Jeffrey Haas > <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>>, > "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" > <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>> > > Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round) > > Hi Reshad, > I think this is very good idea. Then in section 4.13.3 Transmitting BFD > Packets of BFD for Multipoint Networks should be edited. Perhaps the > following be acceptable: > OLD TEXT > > A system MUST NOT transmit any BFD Control packets if bfd.SilentTail > > is 1. > NEW TEXT > > A system MUST NOT transmit any BFD Control packets if bfd.SessionType is > > MultipointTail. > > Will look into related changes in active tails if others agree with the > proposal in general. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) > <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> wrote: > 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<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> > Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 9:32 AM > To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" > <cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>>, Greg Mirsky > <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> > Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>>, > "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" > <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>> > > Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round) > > Hi Greg, > > The changes for bfd.SessionType (in both drafts) look good. > > bfd.SilentTail is fine in multipoint but in active-tail it is in the New > State Variables section. It should be in 3.3.2 instead and there should be a > reference to the multipoint draft. > > Also, I am in the process of doing 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<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> > Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 1:47 AM > To: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> > Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>, > Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>>, > "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" > <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round) > > Looks good to me, Greg. Thanks. > Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. > Excuze typofraphicak errows > > On Jan 16, 2018, at 15:32, Greg Mirsky > <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi Reshad and Carlos, > thank you for your suggestions. Please check the diffs with proposed changes > to BFD Multipoint and BFD Multipoint with active tails drafts (attached). > > Regards, > Greg > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > <cpign...@cisco.com<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 active-tail doc: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-06#section-3.3.1 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12#section-4.4.1 > > Thanks, > > — > Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com> > > “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself > sound more photosynthesis." > > On Jan 16, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) > <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > Section 4.4.1 still says “New state variables” for bfd.SessionType and the > text still starts with “A number of state variables and their values are > added…”, so I misinterpreted that as bfd.SessionType is being added as new > state variable. > > Please consider splitting this section in 2 parts for clarification e.g. > 4.4.1 for New State Variables (bfd.SilentTail) and 4.4.2 for New State > Variable Values (bfd.SessionType). > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12#section-4.4.1 > > Regards, > Reshad. > > From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> > Date: Monday, January 15, 2018 at 6:17 PM > To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> > Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>>, "Carlos Pignataro > (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>>, > "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" > <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round) > > Hi Reshad, > I thought I've addressed them as per Carlos suggestion. Have I missed > anything? > > Regards, Greg > > On Jan 15, 2018 3:00 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" > <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> wrote: > 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 Jeffrey Haas" > <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of > jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: > > Greg, > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:17:02PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Carlos and Jeff, > > thank you for responding so expediently. I think we've reached the rough > > consensus. Attached are the diffs for both BFD documents and the updated > > copies. Please let me know if the changes being made have addressed all > the > > comments received during the WGLC. I'll then upload new versions. > > I believe this covers all points I've seen on the mailing list to date. > > Please push the updates. > > We'll have further discussion about the need for a registry in conjunction > with the Yang module implications discussion. > > -- Jeff > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Jeffrey Haas > <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: > [...] > > > 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. > > > <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-06.txt - > draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-07.txt.html> > <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12.txt - > draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-13.txt.html> > > >
