Hello Carlos,
Thanks for your review comments. Please see inline [SPK].
Thanks
Santosh P K
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Just one comment on these two documents, in regards to the state
> variables:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10#section-4.4.1
>
> 4.4.1. New State Variables
>
> A number of state variables are added to the base specification in
> support of Multipoint BFD.
>
> bfd.SessionType
>
> The type of this session. Allowable values are:
>
> CMP: However, this state (bfd.SessionType) variable is already defined in
> SBFD RFC 7880:
>
[SPK] Ok we can remove it here and give reference to RFC 7880. This draft
can use this state variable and need not say that new state variable.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7880#section-6.1
>
> 6.1. New State Variables
>
> A new state variable is added to the base specification in support
> of S-BFD.
>
> o bfd.SessionType: This is a new state variable that describes
> the type of a particular session.
>
>
> CMP: So, for draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint, I suggest a pointer to RFC 7880
> where bfd.SessionType is defined in the addition of new values to the
> existing variable.
>
[SPK] Sure.
>
> CMP: Similarly:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-
> active-tail-04#section-3.3.1
>
> bfd.SessionType
>
> The type of this session as defined in
> [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]. A new value introduced is:
>
> CMP: The pointer above should be to RFC 7880 also, and:
>
> bfd.SilentTail
>
> CMP: But this is defined in draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10#section-4.4.1
>
> bfd.SilentTail
>
> [SPK] I will take care of this.
> Thanks!
>
> — Carlos.
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Working Group,
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-04
>
>
> The BFD Multipoint documents have been stable for some time. Prior
> discussion at meetings has suggested we have an implementation for the
> main
> protocol component. Also per prior discussions, we split the active-tail
> component of the original multipoint document to permit implementors to not
> have to worry about implementing active-tail procedures if they weren't
> interested in that feature.
>
> We are starting an extended last call on these documents. The WGLC will
> conclude on July 14. This provides ample time for list discussion. If
> necessary, the IETF-99 meeting may provide for opportunities to close any
> contentious technical points. (BFD is not currently scheduled to meet.)
>
> One item I would like to kick off is the document status of the active-tail
> mechanism. At this time, no one has implemented it that I am aware of.
> Discussion with our AD suggests that publishing the document with
> Experimental status may be reasonable to preserve the work that went into
> the proposal.
>
> -- Jeff
>
>
>
