Hi,
I agree with Reshad.
I just read this draft and I am confused with the missing background and
references about the S-BFD.
For example, in section 4.3.2.2 and 4.3.2.3, it would be better to add
explanations about the parameters such as the "Multiplier" and "Remote
Discriminator".
Regards,
Quan
[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03
Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com> Tue, 07 January 2025 00:13 UTCShow header
Hi,
My PCE exposure is a bit dated, so I can't really say anything about adoption.
I took a look at the doc:- It's not clear to me why Min Tx Interval is in
milliseconds in 4.3.2.2 (as opposed to microseconds as in RFC5880)- The base
BFD doc (RFC5880) is in the reference list, but the S-BFD documents (RFC788x)
are not.- There should be a reference for the LSPA object?
Regards,Reshad.
On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 06:11:15 AM EST, Dhruv Dhody
"><d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote:
Hi,
Keeping the BFD WG in the loop about this ongoing adoption call in the PCE WG.
Please respond to the PCE WG mailing list with your comments/concerns if any.
Thanks! Dhruv
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dhruv Dhody "><d...@dhruvdhody.com>Date: Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 4:37 PM
Subject: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03
To: "><pce@ietf.org>Cc: pce-chairs "><pce-cha...@ietf.org>,
"><draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-paramet...@ietf.org>Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters/Should
this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why
not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work
on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
Please respond by Monday 20th Jan 2025.
Please be more vocal during WG polls!
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
