Greg,
We seem now to be converging on the substance of your draft. Thanks for
sticking with this.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 03:59:36PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> thank you for pointing to the sloppy terminology I've used referring to
> what is the proposed update to RFC 5880. In fact, the draft,
Hi Jeff,
thank you for pointing to the sloppy terminology I've used referring to
what is the proposed update to RFC 5880. In fact, the draft, as I should
have done too, refers to the Diag field. Below are quotes from RFC 5880 to
help me explain the intended update:
- is section 6.1 Poll sequenc
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection WG of the
IETF.
Title : Secure BFD Sequence Numbers
Authors : Mahesh Jethanandani
Sonal
Hi Tom,
We are in the process of refreshing all the drafts that have expired.
Cheers.
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 5:55 PM, tom petch wrote:
>
> Jeff
>
> Two of the three I-D you mention have timed out and are not available
> through the usual channels.
>
> I suggest that the first step needs to be
A reminder from 5880's state machine (6.8.6)
: Else
[...]
: Else (bfd.SessionState is Up)
: If received State is Down
: Set bfd.LocalDiag to 3 (Neighbor signaled
: session down)
: Set bfd.SessionState to Down
:
Jeff
Two of the three I-D you mention have timed out and are not available
through the usual channels.
I suggest that the first step needs to be a refresh so that they are
available.
(Yes, I know I can jump through hoops and find obsoleted I-Ds but life
is too short:-)
Tom Petch
- Original
