Les,
> On Jan 31, 2022, at 2:47 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > wrote: > I have not asked for BFD extensions. > I have stated that “IF” additional functionality is required from BFD that > the proper place to discuss that is in the BFD WG – and such discussions are > definitely not in scope of this draft. Agreed. > > The main content of this lengthy thread is Robert asking for additional > specification in this draft and other folks (myself, Albert, Ketan) saying it > doesn’t belong in this draft. Which is why I agree with everything you say > below except for your perception that you are agreeing with Robert. You are > actually agreeing with myself, Albert, Ketan. 😊 I was largely agreeing with Robert about the state of BFD and how it likely impacts the OSPF feature. BFD isn't helpful beyond the Up/Down signaling, how it handles too much noise, etc. So, I think we're all in agreement about these things. What the protocol chooses to do about the signaling BFD provides is up to the protocol. I think we're all agreeing that the strict mode helps with making sure implementations use the inputs to their state machines consistently. Whether there's any sort of "pause button" used by the implementation once the ordering is agreed upon seems to be where the disagreements have been. Such a pause button isn't appropriate for BFD. And now we're fully in sync. :-) -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
