Thanks, Alia! Will add a pointer.
-----Original Message----- From: Alia Atlas <[email protected]> Date: Monday, May 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Jeff Haas <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-06: (with COMMENT) >Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-06: No Objection > >When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >introductory paragraph, however.) > > >Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > >The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >1) Sec 3.7: This section describes BFD Fault Isolation. It isn't clear >to me that the S-BFD base spec has addressed this case at all. More >clarification would be nice - either indicating that this use-case wasn't >handled or having a small pointer to how it was. > >
