Skip to main content

Common Interval Support in Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
RFC 7419

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -04)

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2014-09-15 for -04)
Language in the draft should change from proposed to definitive.  

For example, in Sec 3,

"The proposed set of Common Interval values is: 3.3msec, 10msec,
   20msec, 50msec, 100msec and 1sec.

   In addition support for 10sec interval together with multiplier
   values up to 255 is recommended to support graceful restart.
"

could become:

"This document defines the set of Common Interval values to
be exactly: ...."
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -04)

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-09-18 for -04)
I support Pete's DISCUSS. However, I won't be able to attend the IESG telechat, so I'll trust Pete.

I had an interesting discussion at lunch time with Jeff Haas (during the NETMOD interim). The WG is afraid that, if that future RFC is standards track, the customers will require vendors to implement those Common Interval values is. And, for example, 3.3msec might not always be possible.

I'm not convinced that playing this "informational" trick because of that reason is reasonable.
However, this solution might be simple:
OLD:

   a BFD
    implementation SHOULD support all values in the set of Common
    Interval values which are equal to or larger than the fastest, i.e.
    lowest, interval the particular BFD implementation supports.

NEW:
   a BFD
    implementation should support all values in the set of Common
    Interval values which are equal to or larger than the fastest, i.e.
    lowest, interval the particular BFD implementation supports.

Anyway, this SHOULD was not targeting bits on the wire.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-09-15 for -04)
Thank you for addressing the SecDir review comments.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04994.html
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-14)
We came to the conclusion that Informational (without 2119 language) and updating 5880 were an appropriate state for this document. Thanks for the DISCUSSion.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-09-17 for -04)
I agree with Pete that it would be better for this to be Standards Track, both from a process-wonk perspective, and from the perspective of actually getting implementers to support these intervals.

Also, since I expect many implementers will be skimming this to find out the values (rather than read the explanatory text), it would be helpful to move the numbers up front, put them in a table / bulletted list, or both.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)

                            
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-09-18 for -04)
I support Pete's DISCUSS, but can live with it if he doesn't get his way.