Álvaro, On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 08:00:35AM -0800, Alvaro Retana wrote: > From your replies, I'm not sure if you think the BFD WG should have > been involved more, or if you agree that it may be better to have a > general purpose attribute like this one developed in BFD, or if you > are ok with the current work. ?? With your bfd-chair hat, of course.
The BFD RFC series makes it pretty clear that BFD will often require help for bootstrapping or discovering sessions. Part of our charter is to help review the work from other Working Groups when they do that. So, it's appropriate to flag it for BFD WG review minimally as part of WGLC. In this case, the responses you're seeing from me have a bit more to do with my background in BGP rather than BFD. :-) I would heartily suggest that IDR get a chance to look at the mechanism in more detail since it likely will be used in a more general fashion for other protocol extensions in BGP. What I think we're seeing is the usual impedence mismatch in BESS where work eventually moves to move general BGP mechanisms and additional IDR scrutiny was needed. My recommendation is to extend WGLC to BFD and IDR. My personal opinion, not speaking as BFD chair, is that the mechanism is generally fine and in need of the minimal PDU encoding advice I've already given. -- jeff _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
