The BFD Working Group requests that
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
Is published as an RFC on the standards track.
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
Requested RFC type: Proposed Standard
The document header says: Standards Track
This document specifies new protocol elements and procedures, and clearly
need to be on the standards track.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
This document proposes a mechanism to run BFD on Link Aggregation
Group (LAG) interfaces. It does so by running an independent
Asynchronous mode BFD session on every LAG member link.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
Blurred L2/L3 line stemmed several interesting discussions. Is it
layer violation for BFD operating at layer 3 to make layer 2 decision?
How does it interact with LACP? How does it influence LAG member link
usability? The desire and need for rapid detection of LAG member link
usability, as well as similar solutions already implemented by multiple
vendors, resulted in consensus to push this technology forward. WG was
satisfied with very careful wordings of the document to ensure that
solution does not tread into IEEE turf.
In addition, remote IP address discovery was a controversial topic.
There were multiple ideas to do this dynamically, which WG couldn't
reach consensus. Thus this aspect was taken out into a separate draft.
That spin-off draft died, since people lost interest due to statically
configuring remote IP address working good enough.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
There are multiple implementations of the protocol. Even was held to
interoperate the implementations.
The document has been reviewed through the normal WG process.
No MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review been performed or
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Nobo Akiya is the document Shepherd.
Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
The document Shepherd reviewed the document at multiple stages of the
document, including when it was accepted as a BFD WG document and as
part of WGLC.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No such concerns.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
IEEE liaison for this work has been completed.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
As described in (2), dynamic remote IP address discovery topic is
an open end with very little interests. However, it is a topic which
comes up from time to time.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
One IPR exists.
Each author has stated on the working group mailing list that they are
un-aware of any IPR that relates to this document, beyond the one
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
One IPR exists.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The working group is behind this document.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No such threats.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
The document passes the ID nits tool clean, with two minor exceptions.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such reviews required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
There are normative and informative references in this document.
All but one are existing RFC's. One is a reference to IEET document:
All references are listed and all are referenced correctly.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
All normative references are to existing RFCs.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
There are no downward references.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No existing RFCs will be changed by the publication of this document.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The Shepherd have reviewed the IANA Considerations.
> IANA assigned a dedicated MAC address 01-00-5E-90-00-01 (see
> [RFC7042]) as well as UDP port 6784 for UDP encapsulated micro BFD
For dedicated MAC address, confirmed the IANA page.
For UDP port, confirmed the IANA page.
The IANA considerations are roughly written, but given that allocations
have already been completed, it seems fine.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No such needed.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No such review.