Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

I believe so, i.e. no open items on my side. Regards,Reshad. On Friday, December 3, 2021, 01:12:44 PM EST, Jeffrey Haas wrote: Are we ready to ship this?  If we think so, I'll audit the threads once more and update the shepherd report.  I can then submit it to the IESG. -- Jeff On De

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

Are we ready to ship this? If we think so, I'll audit the threads once more and update the shepherd report. I can then submit it to the IESG. -- Jeff > On Dec 3, 2021, at 1:06 PM, Reshad Rahman > wrote: > > Fixed in 09: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-09 >

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

Fixed in 09:https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-09 On Sunday, November 28, 2021, 06:32:58 PM EST, Reshad Rahman wrote: Thank you Tom. I did modify the YANG tree by hand because something was wrong in my environment. Tracking this with  https://github.com/bfd-

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

Thank you Tom. I did modify the YANG tree by hand because something was wrong in my environment. Tracking this with  https://github.com/bfd-wg/bfd-unsolicited/issues/2 Regards,Reshad. On Saturday, November 27, 2021, 07:33:55 AM EST, t petch wrote: On 26/11/2021 17:23, Reshad Rahman wr

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

On 26/11/2021 17:23, Reshad Rahman wrote: I just posted 08, it passed id-nits :-) Seriously, regarding the old reference to bfd-yang it could be because 07 was posted before RFC9127? Tom, this should address most (hopefully all) of the outstanding comments you've provided from Aug 2020, Oct 2

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

I just posted 08, it passed id-nits :-) Seriously, regarding the old reference to bfd-yang it could be because 07 was posted before RFC9127? Tom, this should address most (hopefully all) of the outstanding comments you've provided from Aug 2020, Oct 2021 and Nov 2021. The Aug 2020 ones went thr

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

On 26/11/2021 16:08, Jeffrey Haas wrote: [Largely for the WG mail list archive.] On Nov 26, 2021, at 7:26 AM, t petch wrote: On 15/10/2021 20:18, Jeffrey Haas wrote: I encourage the Working Group to review the draft and the comments to date. After resolving them, I believe we're ready to hav

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

On 26/11/2021 14:20, Robert Raszuk wrote: Tom, I have personally addressed most if not all of your comments. Do you see in version -07 used "aligned" or "explicitely" ? If something was not addressed it was based on the discussion with co-authors. Robert I cannot recall commenting on 'expli

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

I'll address the comment below on missing normative reference to 8349 and will upload 08. I believe the other comments have been addressed in the copy in github. Regards,Reshad. On Friday, November 26, 2021, 11:08:11 AM EST, Jeffrey Haas wrote: [Largely for the WG mail list archive.]

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

[Largely for the WG mail list archive.] > On Nov 26, 2021, at 7:26 AM, t petch wrote: > > On 15/10/2021 20:18, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >> I encourage the Working Group to review the draft and the comments to date. >> After resolving them, I believe we're ready to have a shepherd writeup and >> send

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

Tom, I have personally addressed most if not all of your comments. Do you see in version -07 used "aligned" or "explicitely" ? If something was not addressed it was based on the discussion with co-authors. Many thx, R. On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:27 PM t petch wrote: > On 15/10/2021 20:18, Jef

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited (failure thereof:-)

On 15/10/2021 20:18, Jeffrey Haas wrote: Working Group, Now that the BFD YANG work is getting ready to pop out of the RFC Editor's queue, it's an appropriate time to finish the last minor details for the BFD Unsolicited draft. Previously, the draft had exited Working Group Last Call with minor

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited

Robert, Greg has suggested a minor change to your most recent text. I have added a comment to Greg's suggestion. (See below.) You have addressed all of the other comments previously requested in my post on 15 October. -- Jeff > On Oct 19, 2021, at 9:19 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Jeff, >

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited

Jeff, I have already added that text based on your previous comments. Is what is added not sufficient ? Many thx, R. PS. I will add Greg's suggestions latter today and repost to -05. " When on the passive side Unsolicited BFD sessions goes down an implementation MAY keep such session state for

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited

I have one minor additional tweak suggested to Greg's change. I think once we converge on this point, I'll do the document shepherd report and submit to the IESG. > On Oct 18, 2021, at 8:47 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Robert and the Authors, > thank you for your kind consideration of my co

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited

Hi Robert and the Authors, thank you for your kind consideration of my comments and for addressing them so thoughtfully. I have two editorial suggestions that can be used, if you decide so, at a later date: - as the text refers to the format of a BFD control message, then it seems appropriat

Re: Progressing BFD unsolicited

Hi Jeff & Greg, I have just submitted -04 version. I believe together with co-authors we have addressed all the comments received so far. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/ Hope that we can move forward with this work. Kind regards, Robert On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 9: