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