The changes for bfd.SessionType (it’s not a new state variable but uses what’s
defined in RFC7880) weren’t made in the latest revision.
Greg, do you plan on addressing this soon? Or there’s no consensus on this
topic yet?
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2017-12-20, 12:09 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas"
<rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of jh...@pfrc.org> wrote:
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.
