Thanks, Reshad. Éric, I think this means all outstanding items are addressed and we can progress the document to the next step?
-- Jeff > On Oct 15, 2024, at 11:17 AM, Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
