The problem the draft addresses is valid and makes sense to address. But I know there are implementations which have addressed this issue w/o requiring any changes to their BFD implementation - so I am not sure how popular this solution will be.
So long as this stays Informational I think it is fine to adopt. I would not be as enthused if this is moved to Standards track. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:53 AM > To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Cc: draft-chen-bfd-unsolici...@ietf.org > Subject: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted > > Working Group, > > Reviewing my notes, I was remiss in sending out an adoption request for > draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted (Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications). > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited/ > > This relatively minor change from the RFC 5880 spec is implemented by at > least one vendor for static route configuration. Its security > considerations already cover what I believe to be the main concern with the > procedural change. > > There's a minor point to resolve regarding the document's status - currently > Informational - with our AD. > > Please indicate whether you'd support adopting this draft as a Working > Group > document. > > Authors, please indicate if you're aware of any applicable IPR on it. > > This adoption request will also end on Friday, November 9, IETF 103 Friday. > > -- Jeff & Reshad
