Hi all, I read the latest version of the draft, it’s well written and easy to read. I think it’s useful solution and ready to move forward.
Some nits: - It’s better to expand the abbreviations (e.g., MTU, PDU, etc.) when first use. - s/path MTU/Path MTU (PMTU) when first use, and using PMTU in later places, to keep the consistence with the usage in other RFCs. Best regards, Mach From: Reshad Rahman <reshad=40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 4:16 AM To: BFD WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets <Re-resend since first 2 attempts seem to have gone to /dev/null> BFD WG, This email (re)starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for "BFD encapsulated in large packets": https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets/ Please take the time to review the document and provide comments by May 24th. Feedback such as "I believe the document is ready to advance" is also welcome. FYI we did WGLC a few years ago, see previous discussions at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/rjyxii23qp8-EQSZQ7d8631kMwY/ There is no known IPR for this document: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/jaAjdrkePSocqvvcxt4ffx0NDg8/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/ Regards, Reshad (co-chair).
