Two notes — - I think you missed (or rejected, I guess) my correction of s/Router Server/Route Server/. - Please run idnits (click the “nits” button in Datatracker, for example) over the draft and fix the nits in the next revision.
Neither of these are a big deal, they can be fixed in the next rev, so I’ve sent it for IETF Last Call. —John > On Oct 24, 2022, at 4:52 PM, Reshad Rahman > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > <[email protected]> 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 > > <[email protected]> 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 > > <[email protected]> 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 > > <[email protected]> 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 …]
