RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-18

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

 



Hi David,

BFD-MIB-19 with suggested text has just been published.

URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfd-mib-19.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-mib/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-mib-19
Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-mib-19

Thanks again!

-Nobo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David [mailto:david.black@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:38 AM
> To: Jeffrey Haas
> Cc: Nobo Akiya (nobo); tnadeau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zafar Ali (zali); General
> Area Review Team (gen-art@xxxxxxxx); rtg-bfd@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; Black,
> David
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-18
> 
> Jeff - could you work w/Nobo to get the word "historical" included in the
> MIB draft as a characterization of BFD version 0 ?  For example, the following
> text could be added to the introduction:
> 
>    because the BFD version 0 protocol is primarily of historical interest
>    by comparison to the widespread deployment of the BFD version 1
> protocol.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:58 AM
> > To: Black, David
> > Cc: Nobo Akiya (nobo); 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-18
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 02:00:05AM -0400, Black, David wrote:
> > > With respect to the MIB, this concern is a nit, so I'm ok with going
> > > ahead
> > without
> > > making this change ...
> > >
> > > ... However ...
> > >
> > > Your WG chairs and AD should be concerned that this significant flaw
> > > in BFD version 0 (justifying a "SHOULD NOT use" recommendation) is
> > undocumented.
> >
> > And also un-RFCed.
> >
> > It was a "work in progress" that never fully saw the light of full
> > deployment.  Vendors very quickly moved to version 1 which fixed a
> > critical issue in the state machine.  If any version 0 survives, it's
> > historical and likely to be a source of operational agony rather than a
> useful feature.
> >
> > -- Jeff






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