Subject: [pim] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 21:40:30 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The shepherd writeup says simply "Proposed standard" in answer to the question
"Why is this the proper type of RFC?".

The SHOULDs in Section 2.1 give the implementer a choice.  I suggest including
some guidance about how to make that choice, or perhaps more concretely, when
one might opt not to do what the SHOULD says.

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:56:24 -0800

Hi Murray,
thank you for your review and the question about the use of the normative
language in Section 2.1. That "SHOULD" refers to the following procedures
defined in RFC 8562:
   To shut down a multipoint session in a controlled fashion, the head
   MUST administratively set bfd.SessionState in the MultipointHead
   session to either Down or AdminDown and SHOULD set
   bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval to zero.  The session SHOULD send BFD
   Control packets in this state for a period equal to
   (bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval * bfd.DetectMult).  Alternatively, the head
   MAY stop transmitting BFD Control packets and not send any more BFD
   Control packets with the new state (Down or AdminDown).  Tails will
   declare the multipoint session down only after the Detection Time
   interval runs out.
The alternative to what is required in RFC 8562 is also listed in that
paragraph - "stop transmitting BFD control packets". I think that it will
be right to s/SHOULD/MUST/ in Section 2.1 of the draft. What is your
opinion?

Regards,
Greg

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 22:28:46 -0800

HI Greg,

On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:56 PM Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> wrote:

> be right to s/SHOULD/MUST/ in Section 2.1 of the draft. What is your opinion
>

I think that's quite reasonable.  Is it the same for the SHOULD in the
final paragraph of that section?

-MSK