Reshad, On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 01:58:25PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > Hi authors., > > This document has passed adoption as a BFD WG document. > > Please resubmit the doc as draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets. Please also note > that while there was strong support for adopting the document, the following > points/questions were raised and should be discussed further within the WG as > the document progresses: > > 1. Is there necessity to send all packets as large packets or > alternatively can that be done periodically? > 2. Authors should consider adding some text wrt use of BFD echo in the > document
The intent is to do the draft-ietf-bfd republish next week and include text to address these. > Also, there was a suggestion made to use BFD for PMTUD (as opposed to the BFD > session failing when expected MTU isn’t met). My take on this is that it > falls out of our charter but the PMTUD use-case should be considered if/when > we recharter, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. We believe that this is currently out of scope for the work. However, as I have discussed with Albert, it's not unusual for BFD features to be used in unexpected ways. If there continues to be interest in discussing this, it might be worth adding an appendix covering this use case. -- Jeff (speaking as an individual contributor)
