Hi Rob, Jeff, all,
Inline.
On Monday, December 19, 2022, 08:20:09 PM EST, Jeffrey Haas
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rob,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 11:37:12AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
<snip>
> I think that SHOULD is clearer than MAY, or another way of stating this could
> be:
>
> ".., the passive side SHOULD* create a matching BFD session toward the active
> side, unless not permitted by local configuration or policy."
While more succinct, the implication is fail-open without policy. (Shades
of the subtleties that got us RFC 8212.)
Perhaps instead:
"..., when permitted by local configuration or policy, the passive side
SHOULD create a matching BFD session toward the active side" ?
<RR> I am good with this change, Jeff thanks for the suggestion.
Regards,Reshad.
-- Jeff
