> On May 21, 2024, at 2:40 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > 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.
Those considerations were all driven by you. Thanks. And yes, the document had lingered without update until... > 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? ... Juniper did its implementation. The BFD WG doesn't have an implementation requirement, but as the authors of the draft, we wanted to make sure that implementation realities proved out the use case rather than need a -bis later for a published but otherwise unimplemented RFC. I'm unable to comment on various customer intentions to deploy at this time, although my coauthor may feel free to speak for his own employer. -- Jeff (speaking as an author)
