Hi John, BFD WG,
Rev 10 has just been uploaded. We have strived to address your comments and
also comments from other reviewers earlier this year.
One change from prior discussions is that we have decided not to address
multi-hop for security reasons.
Regards,Reshad.
On Monday, October 24, 2022, 10:32:47 AM EDT, John Scudder
<jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Hi Reshad,
Thanks for your reply. It’s been a while since I did the review so I’m having
to re-familiarize myself with the draft, but I think I’m more or less back up
to speed. It seems like we’re in sync. Probably the next step is for you to cut
a new version of the draft, I’ll give it a quick once-over, and then we go to
IETF LC. I guess that’ll be sometime after 115 unless you’ve got a version 10
you’re planning to submit in the next few hours.
While you’re at it, please take on board Henning Rogge’s suggestion in the RTG
review, to expand “BFD” on first use.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/vXlsftYBiMMUH3_p0japqt46BJM
Thanks,
—John
> On Oct 22, 2022, at 3:07 PM, Reshad Rahman
> <reshad=40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Regarding bfd.UnsolicitedRole, I forgot to mention that yes the current text
> (in -09) is confusing/wrong because it refers to an interface and
> configuration for unsolicited. As mentioned below, my take is that this
> variable is per session, not specific to unsolicited and refers to the role
> as per RFC5880 section 6.1.
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> On Saturday, October 22, 2022, 09:50:10 AM EDT, Reshad Rahman
> <res...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for the review and for your patience...
>
> I'm ok with this form of comments. I don't think it necessarily saves us
> time, unless I'm missing something, since we edit the xml version.
>
> Response below <RR>, co-authors please keep me honest.
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022, 12:40:46 PM EDT, John Scudder
> <jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Authors,
>
> Thanks for your patience. Here’s my review of your document. There are some
> questions I’ve raised that will need some discussion before I can be sure
> I’ve properly understood the doc.
>
[… snip …]
