Hi Jeff, it is also my impression that the concept described in the draft is different from the Passive role as defined in RFC 5880. I think that needs to be clearly explained in the draft and, it seems to be helpful to even use another term to avoid any possible confusion.
Regards, Greg On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:35 AM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > Greg, > > Not speaking for the authors here, but: > > On Feb 28, 2022, at 10:34 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > GIM>> Thinking of what might had confused me, I feel that it may be the > use of "passive role" that was already described in Section 6.1 RFC 5880. > What do you see as the distinction between the Passive role behavior as > described in RFC 5880 and the passive role described in the draft? > > > The primary distinction of this proposal is whether or not a session is > PROVISIONED at the passive side or not. > > It's possible to be provisioned, and passive. > > This draft makes the passive side at best loosely provisioned. "I am > willing to accept incoming BFD sessions without having one configured". > > -- Jeff > >
