Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Support
draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-bfd-07
Yes
No Objection
(Benoît Claise)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2012-05-25 for -05)
Unknown
From the shepherd writeup: There are references to section 10 and section 4, which should both be references to section 7.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-07-17)
Unknown
Thanks for working on the Discuss points and my Comments. The new revision has resolved most of them and I am downgrading the remaing two Discuss points to be Comments. I still hope they will be looked at, but I do not think they merit blocking the document. --- In looking for a a reference to be added to draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-oam (and/or to draft-ietf-trill-oam-req or draft-salam-trill-oam-framework) I am seeking joined-up thinking about OAM within Trill such that the reader can see that BFD is just part of the overall OAM solution and can understand when other tools might be more appropriate. Although the document is self-contained wrt motivation for BFD, it does not present the necessary hooks for seeing the whole OAM picture. In general, one would expect the OAM requirements and framework to be developed first, and solutions to follow. But I understand that carts often get ahead of horses. Thus normative references might not be an absolute requirement. But some form of reference is really desirable. --- > Finally, although I understand that the scope of this document is > limited to encapsulation, I think that this leaves the solution > deficient. It needs a description of bootstrapping in the Trill > environment. The authors proposed adding text to section 2.1 to say: For many applications, a means of triggering or bootstrapping the BFD session is required. This will be specified with the particular use of BFD over TRILL. For example, see draft-hpothetical-trill-rfc6327bis. This would be good.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-05 for -06)
Unknown
Minor comments; no need to respond: I find citing nroff in the Acknowledgments section to be odd, for whatever that's worth. (I also can't remember when I last saw an actual normative reference to ASCII.)
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-04 for -06)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS so quickly.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-07-17)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my discuss.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-06 for -06)
Unknown
I agree with the shepherd's recommendation to change the reference for [ASCII] to ANSI X3.4. I suggest looking at the references in RFC5891 for an example: [ASCII] American National Standards Institute (formerly United States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968. ANSI X3.4-1968 has been replaced by newer versions with slight modifications, but the 1968 version remains definitive for the Internet.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-05 for -06)
Unknown
- I'm not clear if the key derivations described in section 6 are mandatory to implement or not. It says that if IS-IS auth is in effect, then you "use" (would that be better with a 2119 MUST?) BDF Meticulous Keyed SHA1 (nice name btw:-), but its not clear to me if that means this is MTI or not. - What does "that state of IS-IS shared secret" mean? Maybe s/that state//? - I don't get why this only needs/uses key ID 0, can you explain further? I guess I'd have expected that if the IS-IS-shared-key had a key ID, then that would be used for the derived key(s) defined here. - I'm wondering if the authentication scheme described here is really used or not? I think it'd be good to say if its real or fictional, if that is known.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-08-14)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my concerns with this document.
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown