Note that I also reviewed the YANG model for the extensions and don't have any
issues. I was a little surprised to see two features but I can't see a better
way to support global configuration AND/OR interface configuration.
On 8/4/20, 10:09 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
I've read the document (more than once) and support publication. It is a
very simple BFD extension that simplifies deployment for the use cases
enumerated in the "Introduction".
I have one editorial comments:
Can you use phasing other than "initiates BFD control packets"?
Perhaps, "initiates a new BFD session" or "begins sending BFD control packets"?
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/4/20, 9:10 AM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas"
<rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of jh...@pfrc.org> wrote:
Working Group,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/
With apologies to the authors of BFD unsolicited, this document is past
due
for Working Group Last Call. The primary holdup on the document had
been
last minute interaction with the RFC Editor with regard to its impact
on the
BFD Yang model. That work had completed some time ago. (The Yang
model,
however, is still lingering in MISREF state.)
This begins a last call period ending on 16 August.
Please send your comments to the mailing list whether you think this
work is
ready to advance to the IESG or not.
-- Jeff & Reshad
