Eric, Jeff,
On Friday, October 11, 2024 at 12:00:39 PM EDT, Jeffrey Haas
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip> # shepherd write-up It contains `we will discuss further at the next
IETF`, but it is unclear which IETF meeting ;) and if it was IETF-120, then
what was the outcome of the discussion ?
We briefly discussed the ECMP topic. Basically, it's substantive enough that
the WG could take this up as a piece of work. However, the working group's
energy is very low and we were primarily discussing shutting down BFD. The
conclusion was instead to enter hibernation mode since IETF benefitted from not
fully decommissioning the working group.
This continues the trend of "the shortest lived working group ever" that Alex
Zinin promised me 20 years ago continuing.
At least the work isn't awful.
Relevant to the question, Robert's observation doesn't change the fundamentals
of BFD and this draft doesn't worsen them. I'd suggest to Reshad that the
point be noted in an update to the shepherd's report.
<RR> That was already mentioned in the writeup, I've tried to make it more
explicit.
The answer to Question 11 should also have a justification of the intended
status, e.g., ‘this document specifies a protocol that need to be
interoperable’, ‘this I-D extends a proposed standards RFC’ or something similar
I'll leave this one to Reshad to update.
<RR> Update was done on 2024-09-02.
Regards,Reshad.
