Hi Reshad, I thought I've addressed them as per Carlos suggestion. Have I missed anything?
Regards, Greg On Jan 15, 2018 3:00 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: > 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. > > > >
