Hi Anoop,
apologies for the miss. Is it the last outstanding? Let's bring it to the
front then.
- What is the benefit of running BFD per VNI between a pair of VTEPs?
>>> GIM2>> An alternative would be to run CFM between VMs, if there's the
>>> need to monitor liveliness of the particular VM.
Dear All,
in light of the IPR Disclosure, I am concerned by its timing (3+ years
after the introduction of the document doesn't seem in line with RFC 8179)
and the FRAND licensing for an implementation. Because of the FRAND clause,
I oppose the progress of the draft further.
Regards,
Greg
---
Dear WG Chairs,
I respectfully ask to summarize the comments that were shared with you and
to publish them to the WG without naming the authors.
And I have to admit that I don't understand your suggestion to use the
Errata. The procedures to apply the Demand mode described in the draft are
not in
Working Group,
After discussion among the chairs, we have decided to not adopt
draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand at this time. Since the list response to the
adoption were positive, it is necessary to explain some of the reasoning for
this choice.
The chairs had private exchanges with individuals tha
Working Group,
After discussing this with Reshad, the consensus is we have enough interest
to proceed in working group adoption.
Authors, please re-submit your draft as draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited.
-- Jeff
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 11:52:32AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Working Group,
>
> Review
Reshad,
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 01:58:25PM +, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
> Hi authors.,
>
> This document has passed adoption as a BFD WG document.
>
> Please resubmit the doc as draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets. Please also note
> that while there was strong support for adopting the docume
