Thanks Jeff. 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?)
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. 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. Given the stated overlap and application of the draft to TR-146 (in the adoption call), It should be noted that this document overlaps work in the Broadband Forum (BBF) document TR-146. As noted in the presentation, the BBF document lacks some clarity and also doesn't discuss interactions with BFD implementations. This draft has good clarifications with regard to implementations of this mechanism when the a BFD Echo-capable implementation is used. 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 hope this information is helpful despite the lack of recollection of our discussion. Thanks, Dave From: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 10:42 AM To: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Cc: David Sinicrope <david.sinicr...@ericsson.com>; David Sinicrope <david.sinicr...@gmail.com>; Xiao Min <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>; rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-e...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Several questions about the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo Thank you, Greg. While I was in the process of responding to a similar inquiry from Joel Halpern I was about to comment that I believe I had discussion with David about this proposal over lunch at an IETF. The items that made it into formal IETF record for bfd unaffiliated: This work was originally presented in IETF 106. There was a note about checking on IPR considerations: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-106-bfd/ The adoption call thread was here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/iHmoi-VS1bRn8_m7OdSbJ3mdPMg/ My lunch discussion with David did not make it into any formal minutes. That's likely a mistake. Let's see what David recalls from that discussion. -- Jeff On Nov 18, 2021, at 10:10 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: Adding BBF Liaison officer David Sinicrope to the discussion. I have a question regarding the BBF's interest in this work. Had IETF and the BFD WG received an official liaison from BBF regarding its interest in standardizing the mechanism mentioned in TR-146? If not, how the BFD WG has concluded that BBF has any interest in that work? Regards, Greg On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 6:29 AM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: I owe the commenters in this thread a detailed response in the near future. However, I did want to highlight the underlying motivation the Working Group had to pick up this work. On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 05:00:09PM +0800, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn<mailto:xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote: > As you may have known or not, before this draft was posted, we ever tried > to submit an errata instead of an I-D. However, under the direction of the > responsible AD and WG chairs, we realized that an informational draft > might be the proper way to record our implementation and deployment. And > then, during the adoption poll of this draft, there was rough consensus > that this draft should be adopted as standards track document, so we > changed the intended status from informational to standards track. A core motivation for this work is to provide an IETF standardized profile of what is typically shipped as Broadband Forum (BBF) TR-146. That mechanism, effectively running a BFD-aware system with a system that does NOT implement BFD but able to provide BFD Echo loopback mode. Arguably, this is one step better than running ping and significantly better from a monitoring standpoint since BFD machinery can be leveraged on the side that supports it for creating events. TR-146 wasn't as clearly specified as we tend to like in IETF BFD work, so we're doing a flavor of that here. Prior discussion with our AD of the time suggested that this is targeted toward Standards Track. But like all IETF work, once we've completed the draft, we may consider whether that classification remains correct. -- Jeff
