On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 03:01:51PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote: > Hi Jeff, > we were not certain where these proposals would fit as there's no changes > proposed to the BFD mechanism. The discussion is on the transport, > encapsulation of BFD control packet. > > Always open to suggestions and greatly appreciate your consideration.
Off the cuff, I'd say the work was appropriate to BFD. Mostly, I think it's just a bit unfair to hit RTGWG with something that required more than a casual bit of background (BFD on LAG) to have an opinion on. Of course, I leave that final determination to the RTGWG chairs. For the scope of the documents, I would normally suggest to just start on the BFD mail list and get a bit of discussion going there. The work is, IMO, clearly in charter for BFD and a reasonable candidate for quick adoption and closure if there's implementation work. As I mentioned, it's very minor surgery to the existing mechanism. > PS. Drafts just been uploaded today. I think one other item you might run afoul of is rtgwg prefers there be some list discussion before presentation slots get assigned. But that's the chairs' prerogative. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
