Hi, Alvaro, > On Sep 25, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Please consider merging this document into draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base.
Where have I heard this before? :-) In addition to my perspective on your review of the -base document, one additional datapoint: there is useful symmetry pf S-BFD with the existing set of BFD documents. You might have noticed how you were referencing only RFC 5880 about -base. That is a clean demarc. draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip is *exactly* as long and detailed as RFC 5881. > I will keep this document in AD Evaluation (and not return it to the WG) at > least until a decision has been made. > Sounds good — please let us know what’s next about this to reach that decision. > Nowhere in this document (or draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base) is congestion > mentioned. There is very little in rfc5881 (and nothing in rfc5884) that > adds to what rfc5880 covers, which makes me think that a generic approach > might be better (i.e. in draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base). I think there are and agree with you, a generic approach (-base) would be better. Thanks, — Carlos.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
