Skip to main content

Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)
draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-07-08
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-06-20
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-06-16
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-05-11
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-05-11
11 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-05-11
11 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-05-11
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2016-05-11
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-05-11
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2016-05-11
11 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2016-05-11
11 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-05-11
11 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2016-05-11
11 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2016-05-09
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Victor Kuarsingh.
2016-05-06
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-05-06
11 Carlos Pignataro IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-05-06
11 Carlos Pignataro New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-11.txt
2016-05-05
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shawn Emery.
2016-05-05
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-05-04
10 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot comment]
victor kuarsingh performed the opsdir reivew.
2016-05-04
10 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-05-04
10 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-05-04
10 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
Section 3:

This sentence is not clear. Which one of the following Options (1&2) do you intend? I am guessing 2, but it …
[Ballot comment]
Section 3:

This sentence is not clear. Which one of the following Options (1&2) do you intend? I am guessing 2, but it may make sense to clarify in either case.

Current:

  Once the above setup is complete, any network node, having the
  knowledge of the S-BFD discriminator allocated to by a remote node to
  remote entity/entities

Option 1:

  Once the above setup is complete, any network node, having the
  knowledge of the S-BFD discriminator allocated to it by a remote node to
  remote entity/entities

Option 2:

  Once the above setup is complete, any network node, having the
  knowledge of the S-BFD discriminator allocated by a remote node to
  remote entity/entities

Section 7.2.1.  Responder Demultiplexing

The last step in section seems to be pointing to the initiator packet transmission. Shouldn't this point to the responder procedures (Section 7.2.2) instead?

"Chosen reflector BFD session SHOULD transmit a response BFD control packet using procedures described in Section 7.3.2."
2016-05-04
10 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-05-04
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-05-04
10 Carlos Pignataro IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-05-04
10 Carlos Pignataro New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-10.txt
2016-05-04
09 Dan Romascanu Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu.
2016-05-04
09 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my comments! I'll check the updated version next week (after the telechat).
2016-05-04
09 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2016-05-03
09 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-05-03
09 Ben Campbell [Ballot comment]
DISCUSS cleared based on proposed edits by Carlos. Thanks for addressing it!
2016-05-03
09 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2016-05-03
09 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-05-03
09 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my prior discuss comments in the updated draft, noting them here to check before approval.

This should be pretty easy …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my prior discuss comments in the updated draft, noting them here to check before approval.

This should be pretty easy to address.  In the security consideration section, the following recommendation appears:

o  SBFDReflector MUST NOT look at the crypto sequence number before
      accepting the packet.

Could you please add text to say what happens (what attacks are possible) if this is looked at?  There is nothing to stop the crypt sequence number from being looked at, right?  Is there a way to actually prevent that?
2016-05-03
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2016-05-03
09 Ben Campbell
[Ballot discuss]
This should be easy to resolve, but given the usage in a "MUST" in the security considerations, I think it's important to fix: …
[Ballot discuss]
This should be easy to resolve, but given the usage in a "MUST" in the security considerations, I think it's important to fix: In section 11, it's not clear to me what is meant by "look at" in the 2nd and 3rd bullets. I assume you mean that the SBFDReflector MUST NOT/MAY use those respective values to make some decision? Otherwise, it's pretty hard to test whether something "looks at" a field.
2016-05-03
09 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-05-03
09 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-05-03
09 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-05-03
09 Alia Atlas [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my Discuss concerns.  I look forward to the updated draft.
2016-05-03
09 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alia Atlas has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2016-05-03
09 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- Section 11: I've had discussions with people from time
to time about BFD and security. I think I've heard the
claim made …
[Ballot comment]

- Section 11: I've had discussions with people from time
to time about BFD and security. I think I've heard the
claim made that authentication was too expensive. (Note:
I am not saying that I accept that as a valid claim, but
that's a different issue:-)  Anyway, wouldn't the same
issues apply here if they do to classical BFD?  If not,
great, and I'll quote you next time someone says crypto
is too expensive.  But if such claims are also to be made
here, then why would you be specifying something that
will not be used?

- Do the implementations that are in-progress implement
the BFD authentication schemes for S-BFD?

- Why not recommend that the weaker options from rfc5880
not be used? At least saying to not send passwords in
clear over networks would be a good thing.

- This document could do with an editing pass. There are
quite a few minor grammatical issues that make this a
harder read. I guess the RFC editor will fix those
though, and they're non-fatal, but seems like a pity to
not have done that already.
2016-05-03
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-05-03
09 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot discuss]
As S-BFD has no initiation process anymore it is not guarenteed that the receiver/responder actually exists. That means that packets could float (uncontrolled) …
[Ballot discuss]
As S-BFD has no initiation process anymore it is not guarenteed that the receiver/responder actually exists. That means that packets could float (uncontrolled) in the network or even outside of the adminstrative domain (e.g. due to configuration mistakes). From my point of view this document should recommend/require two things:

1) A maximum number of S-BFD packet that is allow to be send without getting a response (maybe leading to a local error report).

2) Egress filtering at the adminstrative border of the domain that uses S-BFD to make sure that no S-BFD packets leave the domain.
2016-05-03
09 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-05-02
09 Alia Atlas
[Ballot discuss]
a) In Sec 7.2.3:  "If the SBFDReflector is generating a response S-BFD control packet for a local entity that is in
    …
[Ballot discuss]
a) In Sec 7.2.3:  "If the SBFDReflector is generating a response S-BFD control packet for a local entity that is in
      service, then "state" in response BFD control packets MUST be set to UP."
    So far, it looked like the SBFDReflector only sends BFD control packets in response to receiving such packets
    from SBFDInitiators.  This paragraph (not just copied) does not clearly describe the desired behavior.  If the
  monitored local entity is "temporarily out of service", does the SBFDReflector respond back to the SBFDInitiator
  with 2 BFD control packets - one indicating UP (as a MUST) and then the next indicating ADMINDOWN?  Is the
  SBFDReflector expected to store a list of active SBFDInitiators and proactively send BFD control packets indicating
  ADMINDOWN?  Please clarify in non-trivial detail.

b) Appendix A:  The looping problem is nicely defined but the text still discusses three potential solutions; clearly the
use of the D bit has been chosen.  It would be much nicer to have the justification in line, but for this discuss - the
unselected alternatives don't belong.

c) Sec 7.2.1: "  S-BFD packet MUST be demultiplexed with lower layer information
  (e.g., dedicated destination UDP port, associated channel type)."
  Please add a clear reference to [draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip] here to show where to find the dedicated UDP
port for S-BFD; I think this or some other mechanism needs to be a normative reference, because I don't see
how one could implement S-BFD without this knowledge.    In particular, since the format
for an S-BFD control packet is exactly the same as for BFD and since only this demultiplexing
with lower layer information is used to tell the difference between S-BFD and BFD packets,
this document requires more specifics.
2016-05-02
09 Alia Atlas Ballot discuss text updated for Alia Atlas
2016-05-02
09 Alia Atlas
[Ballot discuss]
a) In Sec 7.2.3:  "If the SBFDReflector is generating a response S-BFD control packet for a local entity that is in
    …
[Ballot discuss]
a) In Sec 7.2.3:  "If the SBFDReflector is generating a response S-BFD control packet for a local entity that is in
      service, then "state" in response BFD control packets MUST be set to UP."
    So far, it looked like the SBFDReflector only sends BFD control packets in response to receiving such packets
    from SBFDInitiators.  This paragraph (not just copied) does not clearly describe the desired behavior.  If the
  monitored local entity is "temporarily out of service", does the SBFDReflector respond back to the SBFDInitiator
  with 2 BFD control packets - one indicating UP (as a MUST) and then the next indicating ADMINDOWN?  Is the
  SBFDReflector expected to store a list of active SBFDInitiators and proactively send BFD control packets indicating
  ADMINDOWN?  Please clarify in non-trivial detail.

b) Appendix A:  The looping problem is nicely defined but the text still discusses three potential solutions; clearly the
use of the D bit has been chosen.  It would be much nicer to have the justification in line, but for this discuss - the
unselected alternatives don't belong.

c) Sec 7.2.1: "  S-BFD packet MUST be demultiplexed with lower layer information
  (e.g., dedicated destination UDP port, associated channel type)."
  Where precisely is this defined or described?  Is there an allocation for a dedicated UDP
port for S-BFD?  I don't see any normative reference to such.  In particular, since the format
for an S-BFD control packet is exactly the same as for BFD and since only this demultiplexing
with lower layer information is used to tell the difference between S-BFD and BFD packets,
this document requires more specifics.
2016-05-02
09 Alia Atlas
[Ballot comment]
1) In the last paragraph of Sec 4.2: "  Even when following the separate discriminator pool approach,
  collision is still possible between …
[Ballot comment]
1) In the last paragraph of Sec 4.2: "  Even when following the separate discriminator pool approach,
  collision is still possible between one S-BFD application to another
  S-BFD application, that may be using different values and algorithms
  to derive S-BFD discriminator values.  If the two applications are
  using S-BFD for a same purpose (e.g., network reachability), then the
  colliding S-BFD discriminator value can be shared.  If the two
  applications are using S-BFD for a different purpose, then the
  collision must be addressed.  How such collisions are addressed is
  outside the scope of this document."

  Sec 4.1 talks about the need for the S-BFD Discriminator to be unique within an Administrative Domain.
  I don't see any details of that addressed here.  What is addressed here seems to be the case for multiple
  S-BFD discriminators applying to the same node - which is specifically discouraged at the end of Sec 3.
  Rather than simply describing the issue as "outside the scope of this document", please either describe it
  as "future work and multiple S-BFD discriminators is discouraged" or add a reference.

2) In Sec 6.1: "bfd.SessionType:" is defined but the only possible values are for SBFD.  Is it possible for a BFD
session to still use the same bfd structure?  I don't see a value for SessionType there; I'd expect to see at least
a value for the original BFD session and possible an undefined or unspecified value for future proofing.
2016-05-02
09 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-05-02
09 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot discuss]
This should be pretty easy to address.  In the security consideration section, the following recommendation appears:

o  SBFDReflector MUST NOT look at the …
[Ballot discuss]
This should be pretty easy to address.  In the security consideration section, the following recommendation appears:

o  SBFDReflector MUST NOT look at the crypto sequence number before
      accepting the packet.

Could you please add text to say what happens (what attacks are possible) if this is looked at?  There is nothing to stop the crypt sequence number from being looked at, right?  Is there a way to actually prevent that?
2016-05-02
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-05-02
09 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2016-04-27
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2016-04-27
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2016-04-18
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-04-13
09 Carlos Pignataro IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-04-13
09 Carlos Pignataro New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09.txt
2016-04-13
08 Alvaro Retana Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-04-13
08 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2016-04-13
08 Alvaro Retana Ballot has been issued
2016-04-13
08 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-04-13
08 Alvaro Retana Created "Approve" ballot
2016-04-13
08 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was changed
2016-04-12
08 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2016-03-25
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-03-25
08 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-08.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-08.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-03-24
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2016-03-24
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2016-03-23
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery
2016-03-23
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery
2016-03-23
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2016-03-23
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2016-03-22
08 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-03-22
08 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: jhaas@pfrc.org, aretana@cisco.com, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: jhaas@pfrc.org, aretana@cisco.com, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection WG (bfd) to consider the following document:
- 'Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-04-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional
  Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of negotiation aspects
  eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as
  well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating
  the path monitoring.

  This document updates RFC5880.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2402/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2107/



2016-03-22
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-03-22
08 Alvaro Retana Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-05-05
2016-03-22
08 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2016-03-22
08 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2016-03-22
08 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was generated
2016-03-22
08 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-03-22
08 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was changed
2016-03-22
08 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2016-02-23
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-02-23
08 Carlos Pignataro New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-08.txt
2016-02-23
07 Alvaro Retana
There are a couple of follow up items related to authentication and congestion that need to be addressed.  The authors may go back to the …
There are a couple of follow up items related to authentication and congestion that need to be addressed.  The authors may go back to the WG for discussion.
2016-02-23
07 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-02-10
07 Carlos Pignataro New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-07.txt
2016-02-09
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-02-09
06 Carlos Pignataro New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-06.txt
2015-10-27
05 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to aretana@cisco.com
2015-10-14
05 (System) Notify list changed from jhaas@pfrc.org, draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2015-09-25
05 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2015-08-20
05 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-08-20
05 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to jhaas@pfrc.org, draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org from "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas
This shepherd writeup covers three documents:
  draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base
  draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case
  draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip



: Document Writeup for Working Group Documents
:
: As required by RFC …
This shepherd writeup covers three documents:
  draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base
  draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case
  draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip



: Document Writeup for Working Group Documents
:
: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
:
: 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?

draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case is targeted for Informational status, which
is appropriate since it does not specify any normative changes to existing
protocols and simply describes the circumstances motivating the Seamless BFD
feature.

Both draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base and draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case are
targeted for Proposed Standard.  The -base document covers updates to the
core BFD protocol, RFC 5880.  The -ip document covers implementation details
specifically relevant to the IP implementations utilizing the extensions in
the -base document; these include IP environments terminating across MPLS
LSPs.

: (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:
:
: Technical Summary:

For -base:
  This document defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional
  Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of negotiation aspects
  eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as
  well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating
  the path monitoring.

For -ip:
  Seamless BFD defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional
  Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of negotiation aspects
  eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as
  well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating
  the path monitoring.

  This document defines procedures to use Seamless Bidirectional
  Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS environments.

For -use-case:
  Seamless BFD defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional
  Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of negotiation aspects
  eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as
  well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating
  the path monitoring.

  This document provides various use cases for Bidirectional Forwarding
  Detection (BFD) such that extensions could be developed to allow for
  simplified detection of forwarding failures.


: 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 or introduction.
:
: Working Group Summary:

(For all documents.)
This document was discussed at length with significant participation of the
active members of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Working
Group.  The use cases are seen to enable the use of core BFD technologies in
a fashion that leverages existing implementations and protocol machinery
while providing a simplified and largely stateless infrastructure for
continuity testing.  The high participation of the Working Group has ensured
that the technical aspects of this mechanism have been thoroughly discussed.

: Document Quality:

This document has been subject to multiple Working Group reviews and
includes participation from several large vendors.  Many of these vendors
have implementations in progress for this feature.

: Personnel:
:
: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Jeffrey Haas, co-chair BFD.
Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana.

: (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 IESG.

The shepherd has participated in multiple review cycles of the documents
with the authors with attention toward reviewing technical detail and
cleanliness of language.  The consensus of the Working Group is that the
documents are ready to progress.

: (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
: of the reviews that have been performed?

Review of the documents has included discussion in the context of running
this feature in an MPLS LSP environment.  Several of the authors are also
regular participants in the IETF mpls Working Group.  It is the shepherd's
belief that this area has been adequately reviewed.

The security aspects of these documents have been discussed at length, with
attention given toward spoofing attacks that may elicit bad behaviors in the
protocol.  It is the shepherd's belief that security aspects have received
sufficient Working Group scrutiny.  Since these documents utilize existing
BFD security mechanisms, it is generally believed that those mechanism
continue to provide appropriate security in the context of Seamless BFD.

Transport considerations were also part of the extended discussion of
Seamless BFD.  In particular, since Seamless BFD is effectively stateless,
the existing mechanisms documented in RFC 5880 to regulate the rate of
packets is less effective.  Implementations of Seamless BFD Reflectors are
free to provide rate limiting of their responses, but must do so with regard
to a peak and potentially unknown load from an unknown number of Seamless
BFD Initiators.

Seamless BFD Reflectors may further control their load through filtering on
Source IP or validation of Destination IP (e.g. via consulting routing or
access control lists).  See draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip, Security
Considerations.

: (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 took place.

Since Seamless BFD is largely building on experience gained in security and
transport considerations from the core BFD standards, no specific additional
review had been previously requested.

: (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 concerns here.

No issues.  It is the Shepherd's opinion that the issues have been
thoroughly discussed.

: (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?

Yes.

: (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
: summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

All IPR has been disclosed.  The only IPR considerations placed against
these specifications is by Cisco Systems:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2402/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2107/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2595/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2106/

These appear to be Cisco's usual RAND terms and did not elicit any concern
from the Working Group.

: (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?

Strong consensus from active members of the Working Group.

: (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.

: (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 thorough.

None of substance.  The open nits are against referenced I-Ds of later
versions.

: (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
: such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

: (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
: normative or informative?

Yes.

: (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?

draft-geib-segment-routing-oam-usecase is referenced by the Seamless BFD use
case document and is targeted for the spring Working Group.  The status of
that document is Informational.  It is unclear to the Shepherd whether that
document will eventually be adopted and progressed within the spring Working
Group as its purpose is to similarly document use cases appropriate to that
Working Group's charter.

Two things may be done:
1. Hold the Seamless BFD Use Case document in REF state pending resolution.
2. Move the reference to that document in the Seamless BFD Use Case document
to be an Informative reference.

It is the Shepherd's belief that 2 may be the appropriate response.

: (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.

No.

: (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.

The Seamless BFD base document will update RFC 5880 and is correctly flagged
as having done so.

: (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 Seamless BFD IP document has gone through early allocation for a UDP
port number.  This number is stably being used by implementors for this
feature.  It is not expected that there will be further Considerations in
that document.

The other two documents have no IANA Considerations.

: (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.

None.

: (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.

Not applicable.

It should be noted that there will be impact on BFD Yang module work that is
in progress with the BFD Yang Design Team.  They have been notified to
consider the impact of these drafts upon their work.

While there is a BFD MIB (RFCs 7330, 7331) covering BFD functionality, no
Working Group work is currently targeted for the management of Seamless BFD
via SNMP.  It is the Shepherd's opinion that if such work is of interest
that there exists sufficient flexibility in the published MIBs to
accommodate the inclusion of management for Seamless BFD, although there
would be an augmentation MIB required to cover the Seamless BFD Reflector
configuration and transport policy.
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas Changed document writeup
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas Notification list changed to "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas Document shepherd changed to Jeffrey Haas
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2015-07-30
05 Jeffrey Haas IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2015-06-19
05 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-05.txt
2015-05-04
04 Jeffrey Haas Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-05-04
04 Jeffrey Haas Expires May 15.
2015-05-04
04 Jeffrey Haas IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2015-01-12
04 Santosh Pallagatti New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-04.txt
2014-08-23
03 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-03.txt
2014-08-01
02 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-02.txt
2014-07-31
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-01
2014-06-26
01 Santosh Pallagatti New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-01.txt
2014-06-12
00 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-00.txt