Greg, On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:17:02PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote: > Hi Carlos and Jeff, > thank you for responding so expediently. I think we've reached the rough > consensus. Attached are the diffs for both BFD documents and the updated > copies. Please let me know if the changes being made have addressed all the > comments received during the WGLC. I'll then upload new versions.
I believe this covers all points I've seen on the mailing list to date. Please push the updates. We'll have further discussion about the need for a registry in conjunction with the Yang module implications discussion. -- Jeff > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: [...] > > At this point it is also worth noting that the session type has no > > centralized location covering their enumerations. This leads to two > > interesting observations: > > - We could have an IANA registry for such things. However, I'm not sure > > this is really need. But this also means: > > - Here's another case why some pieces of the BFD yang module likely shoudl > > be IANA maintained. In this case, the bfd-path-type identity as the > > relevant example.
