Re: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

2020-12-18 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 8:57 PM Greg Mirsky wrote: > > I can't quite parse the first sentence of Section 3.1.1. Maybe this will >> help: >> >> OLD: >> >>A condition to consider that the status of a P-tunnel is Up is that >>the root of the tunnel, as determined in the x-PMSI Tunnel attrib

Re: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

2020-12-18 Thread Greg Mirsky
Hi Murray, thank you for the suggested text that makes our intention is crystal clear. I've updated the text and used your text in the second place: OLD TEXT: o SHOULD delete the P2MP BFD session associated with the P-tunnel; NEW TEXT: o the P2MP BFD session associated with the P-tunnel MUS

Re: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

2020-12-18 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
Hi Greg, Just to be clear, this is purely a suggestion on my part that might improve the document. It's not a DISCUSS, so you're not obligated to indulge my suggestions unless you think they're a worthwhile improvement. Yes, those all look good to me. For the 4.2 changes, I might suggest a slig

Re: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

2020-12-18 Thread Greg Mirsky
Hi Murray, I feel that our discussion and changes helped to make the document clearer, improved it. And I like the manner you've re-worked text in Section 4.2. I'll use it. Regards, Greg On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:49 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Just to be clear, this is purely a