Hi, Alvaro, We just posted rev -09, addressing these.
Please note that regarding "2. [nit]”, we left the additional references. For example, rfc7880 in itself is not sufficient, and rfc7881 defines S-BFD for MPLS. rfc7882 specifically talks about this use case in Section 3.4 and therefore seems useful information to cite. For completeness, and since you marked this as a nit, we left those in, but moved them to Informative. Thanks! — Carlos. On Jul 25, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi! I looked -08 and almost everything looks good to me. The only exception is the result from the comment below: 1. All the new references should be Informative as they seem to just be examples: “Packets from a variety of protocols can be used to check continuity. These include…”. 2. [nit] A reference to the base should be enough: for example, rfc7880 should be enough for S-BFD; no need to mention all. I’ll leave this document waiting for the Architecture so we can progress them together. Please update the references when you get a chance, no hurry. Thanks! Alvaro. On 7/1/17, 4:34 PM, "Carlos Pignataro on behalf of Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ####### P2. “BFD or LSP Ping format”…references? [ED] Next draft version. [ED] Good point as well. In addition to adding the references, we also add ICMP and S-BFD for completeness. — Carlos Pignataro, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
