Sooo…this was a real “blast-from-the-past” for me. Over four years went by with no public updates – and in looking at the diffs between the latest version and V2 (which is where the discussion ended for me) it seems that not much has changed (albeit YANG section was introduced).
I went back and reread the emails from years ago. It seems my concerns at the time were addressed – largely by Section 4. I am a bit reluctant to look too closely because I fear I will revive issues that were resolved years ago, but I no longer have the same context. So, I am just going to say this looks good to me and I support progressing the document. I would be interested to know – was an implementation ever deployed in the environment which first raised the need for this draft – and if so what were the results? If not, does this reflect a lack of interest in the functionality? Les From: Reshad Rahman <reshad=40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 1:16 PM 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).
