Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)

Support publication. Thank you Gyan On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 12:02 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Working Group, > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo/05/ > > The authors of draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo have requested WGLC. > > The draft, in my opinion, is in

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)

Hi, Jeffrey: Please see the inline replies [WAJ] -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Haas Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:22 PM To: Aijun Wang Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023) Aijun, > On Apr 4, 2023, at 5:28 AM, Aijun

Re: Several questions about the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo

Thank you, Jeff, for pointing me in the right direction. Regards, Greg On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:03 AM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Greg, > > You may find the official liaison response here in the archives: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/vw31qO1UpD7epoZKXT8_obmY64A/ > > The contents

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)

Greg, > On Mar 27, 2023, at 1:40 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Dear Authors, > I read the latest version of the draft. I appreciate your work on improving > its readability. I have several concerns and appreciate your consideration: > It appears like the document defines the format of the Echo

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)

Xiao Min, Thanks for addressing Greg's comments. I some additional comment on Greg's points: > On Apr 6, 2023, at 3:35 AM, > wrote: > The draft describes how the destination IP address of the Echo packet is set. > Are there any special considerations for selecting IPv6 destination

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)

Aijun, > On Apr 4, 2023, at 5:28 AM, Aijun Wang wrote: > From the description of this document, the state machine of local device is > conformed that described in RFC5880, the main standard parts of this > document are the contents of related fields within the BFD ECHO Packet. If > so, I

Re: Several questions about the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo

Greg, You may find the official liaison response here in the archives: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/vw31qO1UpD7epoZKXT8_obmY64A/ The contents of that response are: From: Dave Sinicrope

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)

Greg, Thank you for the detailed reply. I suspect I've known where your concern derive from, that's a misunderstanding. Note that the Unaffiliated BFD Echo is NOT intended to replace the BFD Echo function defined in RFC 5880. I don't think an interoperability between a system using

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)

Aijun, Thanks for your support and review. Please see inline... Original From: AijunWang To: 'Jeffrey Haas' ;rtg-bfd@ietf.org ; Date: 2023年04月04日 17:28 Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023) Support its forwarding. The implementation and