RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Jeff,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:15 PM
> To: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
> Cc: Black, David; tnadeau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zafar Ali (zali); General Area
> Review Team (gen-art@xxxxxxxx); rtg-bfd@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
> 
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:18:28PM +0000, Nobo Akiya (nobo) wrote:
> > > I did not see a compliance requirement for a system that only
> > > implements BFD protocol version 0.  That absence should at least be
> > > mentioned somewhere.  For example, if this reflects a considered and
> > > deliberate decision by the WG, that should be mentioned in the
> introduction.
> >
> > Good point. If I remember correctly, BFD version 0 had a problem in the
> state machine that can cause the two ends to fall into a deadlock. It would
> be, therefore, very bad for anybody to have BFD version 0 deployed out
> there, and asking for any MIB compliance requirement for such. Consensus
> on absence of compliance requirement for BFD version 0 was never polled
> in the WG, but I can say that there shouldn't be any desire for that.
> 
> With respect to v0 vs. v1 from a MIB perspective, the only user-visible detail
> was the additional state in the state machine.  That means that the MIB in its
> current form should be able to accommodate bfd v0.
> 
> This does suggest, however, that the TC mib could use a comment in the
> DESCRIPTION toward the point that failing(5) is only valid for BFD v0.

Agree, and it's already there :)

[snip]
    IANAbfdSessStateTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS         current
    DESCRIPTION
        "BFD session state. State failing(5) is only applicable if
         corresponding session is running in BFD version 0."
[snip]

-Nobo

> 
> A conformance clause indicating that those so foolish as to deploy BFD v0
> would better be served by the determinism of a five-year-old child flipping
> a coin is probably out of scope for the draft.  But if someone has sufficiently
> proscriptive text to add to say "don't do bfd v0" that is acceptable to the
> reviewers, I'm fine with that.
> 
> -- Jeff






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]