FWIW, I think that the text below actually indicates that the behavior in draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail is not needed for draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint to work. IOW, draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail is an option (as it says below), only to be used “if a return path exists”…and it should then not formally Update draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint.
Alvaro. On July 4, 2018 at 6:08:49 PM, Martin Vigoureux ([email protected]) wrote: [adding back authors/WG/chairs/shepherd, which I unintentionally pruned by replying only to the list... sorry] Thank you Ben. Perfectly clear to me now. The Introduction of bfd-multipoint currently states: As an option, if a return path from a tail to the head exists, the tail may notify the head of the lack of multipoint connectivity. Details of tail notification to the head are outside the scope of this document and are discussed in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail]. Would you consider this as sufficient?
