<Resending comments I had sent just prior to WGLC>
Hi Jeff,
I just took a look at -07, thanks for the updates. I am good with the changes
made, ack for your response wrt operational data.
- Section 4.2: do we need 2119 language for the following paragraph and should
the should be a MUST?
In the case multiple BFD clients desire to test the same BFD
endpoints using different bfd.PaddedPduSize parameters,
implementations should select the largest bfd.PaddedPduSize parameter
from the configured sessions.
- Section 5.2: the YANG module addresses the cases where the BFD sessions are
configured directly in BFD. Should we have some text in there which mentions
that configuring the pdu-size in BFD clients is out of scope and requires the
clients to use the new grouping "bfd-large-common"? Do you know anyone e.g. in
IDR who could do that for BGP :-)
Regards,Reshad.
On Thursday, May 9, 2024, 04:15:57 PM EDT, Reshad Rahman <[email protected]>
wrote:
<Re-resend since first 2 attempts seem to have gone to /dev/null>
BFD WG,
This email (re)starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for "BFD encapsulated in
large packets":https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets/
Please take the time to review the document and provide comments by May 24th.
Feedback such as "I believe the document is ready to advance" is also welcome.
FYI we did WGLC a few years ago, see previous discussions at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/rjyxii23qp8-EQSZQ7d8631kMwY/
There is no known IPR for this document:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/jaAjdrkePSocqvvcxt4ffx0NDg8/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/
Regards,Reshad (co-chair).
