Hi Greg, Section 4.4.1 still says “New state variables” for bfd.SessionType and the text still starts with “A number of state variables and their values are added…”, so I misinterpreted that as bfd.SessionType is being added as new state variable.
Please consider splitting this section in 2 parts for clarification e.g. 4.4.1 for New State Variables (bfd.SilentTail) and 4.4.2 for New State Variable Values (bfd.SessionType). https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12#section-4.4.1 Regards, Reshad. From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 15, 2018 at 6:17 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round) 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<mailto: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<mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of jh...@pfrc.org<mailto: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<mailto: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.
