; Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 8:09 PM
> To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
> Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> ; Martin Vigoureux ;
> rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited
(ending 16
> August, 2
s,
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>
>
>
>Les
>
>
> From: Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 8:09 PM
> To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
> Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> ; Martin Vigoureux ;
> rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Working Gr
,
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>
>
>
>Les
>
>
> From: Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 8:09 PM
> To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
> Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> ; Martin Vigoureux ;
> rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Wor
@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16
August, 2020)
An informational document that also has a management/YANG part included would
IMHO be the right outcome.
Regards,
Jeff
On Aug 18, 2020, at 19:38, Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
mailto:rrah
(ginsberg)
; Martin Vigoureux ;
rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16
August, 2020)
An informational document that also has a management/YANG part included would
IMHO be the right outcome.
Regards,
Jeff
On Aug 18, 2020, at 19:38, Reshad
esday, August 18, 2020 at 9:01 PM
> To: Robert Raszuk , "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
> , "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , Martin
> Vigoureux
> Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
> Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending
> 1
: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 9:01 PM
To: Robert Raszuk , "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , Martin
Vigoureux
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16
August, 2020)
IMHO - It isn’t right
2020 at 5:44 AM
> To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
> Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
> Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending
> 16 August, 2020)
>
> Hi Les,
>
> While shifting to Informational would be perhaps ok protocol wise
uk.net>>
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 5:44 AM
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
mailto:ginsberg=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf
From: Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas
Sent: 17 August 2020 21:45
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:21:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Working Group,
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/
>
> With apologies to the authors of BFD unsolicited, this document is past due
>
sberg)"
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16
August, 2020)
Hi Les,
While shifting to Informational would be perhaps ok protocol wise - isn't it
common practice in IETF that any draft (or at least most of them) which
---
> > From: Rtg-bfd On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:45 PM
> > To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited
> (ending 16
> > August, 2020)
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:21:2
g. RFC
> 5881)
>
> Therefore, I think this should go forward - but as Informational.
>
> Les
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rtg-bfd On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
>> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:45 PM
>> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
>> Subject:
ct: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16
> August, 2020)
>
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:21:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > Working Group,
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/
> >
> > With apol
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:21:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Working Group,
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/
>
> With apologies to the authors of BFD unsolicited, this document is past due
> for Working Group Last Call. The primary holdup on the document had
ireddy
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16
August, 2020)
> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:38 AM, Raj Chetan Boddireddy wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Please find comments below:
>
> > o When BFD is used to keep track of the "liveness"
Dear Authors, et al.,
thank you for this well-written document. The mechanism described in the
draft is, in my opinion, useful and will save considerable efforts of the
operator. I have several questions and comments listed below:
- Would the introduction of Unsolicited mode make this draft
Note that I also reviewed the YANG model for the extensions and don't have any
issues. I was a little surprised to see two features but I can't see a better
way to support global configuration AND/OR interface configuration.
On 8/4/20, 10:09 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote:
I've read the
I've read the document (more than once) and support publication. It is a very
simple BFD extension that simplifies deployment for the use cases enumerated in
the "Introduction".
I have one editorial comments:
Can you use phasing other than "initiates BFD control packets"? Perhaps,
Working Group,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/
With apologies to the authors of BFD unsolicited, this document is past due
for Working Group Last Call. The primary holdup on the document had been
last minute interaction with the RFC Editor with regard to its impact
20 matches
Mail list logo
