Resending after reducing the size.
Chris and all,
I support adoption of this draft as a WG document.
Regards,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:53 AM
To: 'Nitish Gupta (ni
Chris and all,
I support adoption of this draft as a WG document.
Nitish,
Lots of thanks for the new version and your clarifications. It addresses my
immediate concerns.
Regards,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
From: Nitish Gupta
Hi Sasha,
Thanks again for your comments and suggestions.
As requested we have added a section indicating that the workings of this draft
can be extended to VRRPv2 as well. We have updated a new version of the draft
as well.
Also for the below point:
“I also think that lack of clarity regardin
Thanks, Reshad.
Since the majority of the content is nits, Greg can simply address them as
Editor.
The Security Considerations issues raised in the base spec may deserve a bit
more explicit Working Group discussion:
: The shepherd has concerns wrt security:
: a) We should have the ability, e.g.
Hi Jeff, Reshad, et. al,
I agree that the Security Considerations section will benefit from clearer
description of the need to limit resources that may be allocated for p2mp
BFD sessions on MultipointTail nodes. Perhaps we can use wording close to
Security Consideration section in RFC 7726:
BFD
