Med,
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:48:43AM +, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Actually, except local-multiplier that we call detection-multiplier, the
> same names are used in both drafts. We can fix that one.
Certainly a start.
> Please note that we are not using the inter
Re-,
The IETF LC was actually closed since 2021-08-06.
Even if the IETF LC is closed, the current BFD comments will be part of the
comments we will be addressing in the next iteration. For your record, we have
already recorded the name alignment fix, the missing default clause, holdtime
expla
Hi Med,
thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my late comments.
Regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:21 AM wrote:
> Re-,
>
> The IETF LC was actually closed since 2021-08-06.
>
> Even if the IETF LC is closed, the current BFD comments will be part of
> the comments we will be address
On August 31, 2021 at 4:51:17 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
Jeff:
Hi! Thanks for looking at this document!
...
> If I were to re-state the longer version of the draft's name, this is
> effectively "using BFD-MP to let PIM hello procedures fail faster". If
> that's an adequate assessment, perhaps the
Alvaro,
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:41:12PM +0200, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On August 31, 2021 at 4:51:17 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > My second concern is shorter. Section 2.3 recommends that the p2mp BFD
> > sessions use a TTL of 255 and reference the GTSM procedures in RFC 5881.
> > However, since
Med,
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 01:21:03PM +, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> The IETF LC was actually closed since 2021-08-06.
>
> Even if the IETF LC is closed, the current BFD comments will be part of the
> comments we will be addressing in the next iteration. For your record, we
> h
