Hi Jeff,
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas(_at_)pfrc(_dot_)org]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:15 PM
To: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
Cc: Black, David; tnadeau(_at_)lucidvision(_dot_)com; Zafar Ali (zali);
General Area
Review Team (gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org); rtg-bfd(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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