Sorry to be tardy in responding... As I stated almost 2 years ago when this draft was introduced:
a)The problem the draft is addressing is real and the solution useful b)There are implementations which have already addressed this problem with no interoperability issues c)I do not see that any changes have been made to the BFD protocol (e.g. RFC 5881) Therefore, I think this should go forward - but as Informational. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:45 PM > To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16 > August, 2020) > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:21:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas 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. > > The last call period has ended with a few comments from Greg and Raj that > should be addressed before we continue. > > It'd also be helpful to hear from additional reviewers before we advance > this document. > > -- Jeff
