It probably should say “the payload size MAY be increased to this value and it
is
not recommended for a BFD session to always use the large size packet for
padding.
How frequent the large size packet being used is application specific”.
for the variety of encaps, the internal application probab
Naiming –
Inline…
From: Naiming Shen (naiming)
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:12 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets
It probably should say “the payload size MAY be increased to this value
Les,
On Oct 21, 2018, at 3:26 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Naiming –
Inline…
From: Naiming Shen (naiming)
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:12 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>
Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>;
r
Naiming -
Thanx for the good discussion. Responses inline.
From: Naiming Shen (naiming)
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:36 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets
Les,
On Oct 21, 2018, at 3:26
I am unaware of any IPR for this document.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 12:33 PM Srihari Raghavan (srihari)
wrote:
> Read through the draft and support the same.
>
> Thanks
> Srihari
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeffrey Haas
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 03:44
> To: rtg-bf
