Hi, Please use time synchronization only - it's a much simpler and more robust solution.
Yours Irrespectively, John Juniper Business Use Only From: BESS <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 5:19 AM To: 'BESS' <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: [bess] WG POLL: Moving forward draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery by dropping "Handshake" option [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi WG, Just as a reminder, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery currently proposes two options: 1) use time synchronization, 2) Use handshake. We have issues moving forward the draft because of some controversy on the handshake option while the time sync option seems to have implementations. It seems that the authors/co-authors agreed to progress the document by removing the handshake option, leaving the "time sync" as the core of the document. As the document is a WG document, we (chairs) need to confirm that there is no objection from the WG progressing the document in such a way. Please provide your feedback. We are opening a poll starting today and ending on **** 18th June **** to gather feedbacks. Thanks, Stephane https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RwO-jIrx4xtw5BeGEy408fDdEbGd5LCFJzTQLJ5VCR2vLRfUycon8iLT9vlpbuw$>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
