Missed, not rejected. Will fix in next rev.
Thanks, Reshad. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 24, 2022, at 5:59 PM, John Scudder <jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > 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 >> <reshad=40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 >> <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 …] >
