Hi Les, While shifting to Informational would be perhaps ok protocol wise - isn't it common practice in IETF that any draft (or at least most of them) which define a YANG model is a Standards Track document ?
I hope you are not suggesting to split this one into two :). Thx, R. On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 5:36 AM 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 > >
