Naiming - I did not say that implementations had done exactly what you propose in this draft. I said:
" there are implementations which have addressed this issue w/o requiring any changes to their BFD implementation" There is more than one way to solve this problem. :-) I raise this point because an implementation which has already addressed the issue has little motivation to move to a different solution (such as you propose). Which is why I am OK if this is merely informational - but not otherwise. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Naiming Shen (naiming) > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 6:58 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; draft-chen-bfd- > unsolici...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG Adoption for draft-chen-bfd-unsolicted > > > I’m not aware of an implementation taking in the inbound BFD packets, > then dynamically seting up a session to the received packet sender end- > point. > As Jeff mentioned Redback planed on this, but didn’t implement. So there > most > likely needs some BFD implementation changes. > > Regards, > - Naiming > > > On Oct 29, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > > 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 > >
