Greg,
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:17:02PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Carlos and Jeff,
> thank you for responding so expediently. I think we've reached the rough
> consensus. Attached are the diffs for both BFD documents and the updated
> copies. Please let me know if the changes being made have
Hi Carlos, et.al,
I agree that for a BFD node that in addition to RFC 7880 supports
draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint bfd.SessionType will not be left unset when the
BFD session is other than of S-BFD type (PointToPoint, MultipointHead or
Multipoint Tail). But if the BFD node only supports base BFD [RFC588
Hi, Greg,
The bfd.SessionType is really a core state variable to the original BFD spec —
just implicitly defined. This is made explicit by the “PointToPoint” value from
draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-11, but that does not mean that RFC 7880 and RFC 5880
need to be revised to add this.
Using SBFDNon
