Many thanks, Jeff. That was the last ask, I promise. Regards, Greg
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 2:28 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > Greg, > > > On Jan 17, 2024, at 4:43 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, Jeff et al., > upon more consideration of this draft, the write-up, and the related to > the draft BBF liaison > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/vw31qO1UpD7epoZKXT8_obmY64A/>, > I would propose to include the reference to the liaison in the write-up. > Perhaps the following update is acceptable: > OLD TEXT: > 5. In discussion over the document's intended status, Greg has expressed > an opinion > that the document should be Experimental rather than Proposed Standard. > As noted > in the IETF webpage, "Choosing between Informational and Experimental > Status", it is > the Shepherd's opinion that Experimental is inappropriate. "The > "Experimental" > designation typically denotes a specification that is part of some > research or > development effort". In this case, implementations are commercially > available > utilizing mechanisms largely similar to those being codified in this > Internet-Draft. > NEW TEXT: > 5. In the discussion over the document's intended status, Greg has noted > that the Broadband Forum, > in its liaison For Information TR-146 and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1775/) > informed the IETF and BFD WG that "In our [Broadband Forum's] opinion, no > future standardization > is required to support TR-146." Greg also expressed an opinion > that the document should be Experimental rather than Proposed Standard. > As noted > in the IETF webpage, "Choosing between Informational and Experimental > Status", it is > Shepherd's opinion is that Experimental is inappropriate. "The > "Experimental" > designation typically denotes a specification that is part of some > research or > development effort". In this case, implementations are commercially > available > utilizing mechanisms largely similar to those being codified in this > Internet-Draft. > > > The BBF liaison is referenced at the mail at the top of the shepherd's > report. > That said, I have no issue with the update you suggest and have > implemented it in the shepherd's report. > > Thanks! > > -- Jeff > >
