Hi Jeff, of course, the WG can send the document IESG on its current track. What is not clear to me is what is being standardized by the document. It appears that everything described is a local behavior that does not affect any other BFD system. Is my understanding correct? Or I'm missing something? I also have some follow-up notes to share with the authors.
Regards, Greg On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 2:53 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 04:24:35PM +0000, Reshad Rahman wrote: > > > On Sunday, February 20, 2022, 05:09:22 PM EST, Greg Mirsky < > gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > - The document uses the normative language and is on the Standard > track. At the same time, the behavior of the passive BFD system is entirely > local and has no impact on the active BFD system. It appears like the use > of normative language describing the implementation of the passive BFD > system is unnecessary. It appears that the Informational track is more > appropriate for this specification. > > <RR> This was debated extensively ~15 months ago. I'll defer to Jeff H > and John S, but the last email I have on this is the following: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/vOMZl9ucZwNKu5_MHHti-4ImOjQ/# > > We'll stick with Proposed Standard for the time being based on conversation > to date. I expect that we'll get similar discussion yet again once this > hits IESG review. End of the day, we'll take whatever gets the document > published. :-) > > -- Jeff >
