I support this document with exactly same points Les’s made, it should progress as informational.
Regards, Jeff > On Aug 17, 2020, at 20:36, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Sorry to be tardy in responding... > > As I stated almost 2 years ago when this draft was introduced: > > a)The problem the draft is addressing is real and the solution useful > > b)There are implementations which have already addressed this problem with no > interoperability issues > > c)I do not see that any changes have been made to the BFD protocol (e.g. RFC > 5881) > > Therefore, I think this should go forward - but as Informational. > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas >> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:45 PM >> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending >> 16 >> August, 2020) >> >>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:21:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >>> Working Group, >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/ >>> >>> With apologies to the authors of BFD unsolicited, this document is past due >>> for Working Group Last Call. The primary holdup on the document had >> been >>> last minute interaction with the RFC Editor with regard to its impact on the >>> BFD Yang model. That work had completed some time ago. (The Yang >> model, >>> however, is still lingering in MISREF state.) >>> >>> This begins a last call period ending on 16 August. >> >> The last call period has ended with a few comments from Greg and Raj that >> should be addressed before we continue. >> >> It'd also be helpful to hear from additional reviewers before we advance >> this document. >> >> -- Jeff >
