Hi Jeff, et al., I now would like to comment on the point of "not satisfactory convergence" of discussion. I assume that this is related to the discussion started by the message <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg04146.html>addressed to Xiao Min, not to the author of the draft. Oddly enough. But I've responded nevertheless. Two questions were raised and both were explained: - BFD Demand mode may be used to monitor the continuity of a path in one direction and we have two specifications, draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint and draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail, that describe how that can be done without and with notification to the ingress BFD node; - indeed, it is the liveliness of the path between the BFD systems that are monitored. These were the questions and, in my opinion, both got answered. And now I got to wonder what other questions need to be addressed? Plans to implement? In my experience, evaluating a draft in WG AP I, explicitly or not, answer to these questions:
- whether the document is coherent; - is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks; - is the document technically sound? And I cannot find any unaddressed question that falls into any of these categories. Much appreciate comments from BFD WG Chairs. Regards, Greg On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 8:52 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jeff, et al., > thank you for the update. I wanted to clarify the second item, the > question related to the IPR Disclosure. The first disclosure used the > "covenant not to assert" language. The second was to only update the filing > status, not the licensing terms. I believe I've clarified that at the time > of asking for WG AP. I was informed that there's the update to IPR > Disclosure on this work submitted that restores the "covenant not to > assert" language. I hope that can be taken into consideration by you and > Reshad. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:10 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > >> Greg, >> >> Apologies for the long delay in reply. >> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 02:40:50PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote: >> > I respectfully ask to summarize the comments that were shared with you >> and >> > to publish them to the WG without naming the authors. >> >> Tersely: >> - The document is not addressing fundamental issues. >> - It is encumbered by IPR. >> - Observed list traffic regarding question on the feature was not >> satisfactorily converging. >> >> > And I have to admit that I don't understand your suggestion to use the >> > Errata. The procedures to apply the Demand mode described in the draft >> are >> > not in contradiction with RFC 5880, so the suggestion to use Errata >> > surprised me. >> >> I will respond on my own analysis in detail hopefully this week. I am >> awaiting the resolution of a particular bit of correspondence before >> determining the tenor of my response. >> >> -- Jeff >> >
