Thank you Jeff! A very clear description on the core motivation and current
situation.
>From the author's perspective, I'd like to remove the reference to BBF TR-146
>if it's becoming a blocking issue instead of a supporting argument.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Hi Jeff, (Sorry for bouncing around email addresses on you… IT challenges
this week)
Thanks for clarifying the assertion concerning BBF interest. Still, given
the statement in the adoption call and the clear references to TR-146 in
the draft, it would be a good idea to liaise to BBF, even if
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:38:02PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> David,
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:18:38PM +, David Sinicrope wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't recall our discussion, but then it would have been as long
> > ago as Singapore in Nov 2019 or before.
> > (Is it possible you spoke
David,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:18:38PM +, David Sinicrope wrote:
> Sorry, I don't recall our discussion, but then it would have been as long ago
> as Singapore in Nov 2019 or before.
> (Is it possible you spoke with Dave Allan?)
That's possible! As I noted in the thread, my notes from
Thanks Jeff.
Sorry, I don't recall our discussion, but then it would have been as long ago
as Singapore in Nov 2019 or before.
(Is it possible you spoke with Dave Allan?)
I can say as the BBF Liaison Manager there have been many past claims of BBF
interest in IETF work without substantiation.
Thank you, Greg. While I was in the process of responding to a similar inquiry
from Joel Halpern I was about to comment that I believe I had discussion with
David about this proposal over lunch at an IETF.
The items that made it into formal IETF record for bfd unaffiliated:
This work was
Adding BBF Liaison officer David Sinicrope to the discussion.
I have a question regarding the BBF's interest in this work.
Had IETF and the BFD WG received an official liaison from BBF regarding its
interest in standardizing the mechanism mentioned in TR-146? If not, how
the BFD WG has concluded
I owe the commenters in this thread a detailed response in the near future.
However, I did want to highlight the underlying motivation the Working Group
had to pick up this work.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 05:00:09PM +0800, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> As you may have known or not, before this
