[wearing my WG chair hat]
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 07:13:11PM -0700, Marc Binderberger wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> not a chair of the VFD WG but I remember we made the conscious decision to
> _split_ the fundamentals/principles ("base") from some nitty-gritty details
> like the transport mechanism.
>
> > I would assume that, since both documents were adopted simultaneously, WG
> > consensus was that two documents (and not a merged one) is what made sense.
>
> I agree on this view.
This was the WG consensus. This consensus covered:
- A similar split of core/base functionality for BFD in RFC 5880 vs.
individual transport mappings with their own quirks.
- Putting the -IP case in the -base document tends to imply that you MUST
implement the -ip feature if you're doing S-BFD. Sure, you might not need
to, but I suspect a number of us have been at the wrong end of RFPs which
ask about "compliance with RFC XXXX".
We should leave this split. We're not exactly concerned with running out of
RFC numbers. :-)
-- Jeff
