Thanks, Santosh!
On Jul 6, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Santosh P K <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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 — Carlos Pignataro, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."
