Hi Jeff, et. al, I've missed the part of active-tails in the WGLC. My apologies. Though it may be too late, I'll send my notes by the end of the week. Since the targeted track to the active-tails draft may be changed from Standard to Experimental perhaps we should inform the TRILL WG as TRILL Support of Point to Multipoint BFD <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-05> has active-tails as its normative reference and very much relies on its functionality to keep the root informed of failure in p2mp tree. reg
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:39 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 > >
