Support, it would be good to progress with simplified version of document. And we can later consider if its worth considering other solution .
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 at 2:19 AM To: 'BESS' <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: WG POLL: Moving forward draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery by dropping "Handshake" option Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 at 2:19 AM 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/
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
