Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-08

Hello Authors, Looks like I've missed the WGLC on this document, but nevertheless would like to share the following comments: Sec 1 of the document says: Section 5 of [RFC5880 ] indicates that the payload of an af

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-08

Hi Xiao Min, Thanks for your response. Please check inline below for further suggestions. On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:41 AM wrote: > Dear Ketan, > > > Thanks for your review and thoughtful comments. > Please see inline. > Original > *From: *KetanTalaulikar > *To: *draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-e.

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-08

Thanks Xiao Min - the update looks good and addresses my comments. Thanks, Ketan On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:58 PM wrote: > Hi Ketan, > > > Thank you for the suggested text, very helpful. > > I've just posted a new revision that incorporates all your comments. Link > as below. > >

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-08

the interface is >physical or virtual? > > Thank you for your consideration. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 5:38 AM Ketan Talaulikar > wrote: > >> Thanks Xiao Min - the update looks good and addresses my comments. >> >> Thanks, >>

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-08

edient response. Please find my notes below tagged > GIM>>. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:37 PM wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> Please see inline. >> Original >> *From: *GregMirsky >> *To: *Ketan Talaulikar ; &g

Re: [GROW] Fwd: RFC5706bis => draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis posted

FYI and a request to monitor this work as it will have implications on upcoming/ongoing work (and documents) in the routing areas well. Please contribute to the discussion on the opsawg mailing list. Thanks, Ketan On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 4:19 PM Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, > > The bcc opt

Regd IPR disclosure on draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication

Hi Mahesh, Thanks for your email and I would like to request further clarification from you on this as you are listed as one of the inventors in the IPR that was disclosed. Is your position today that IPR declared does not apply to the latest version of the draft (as it stands today)? This may c

Re: Regd IPR disclosure on draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication

I know Reshad was going on vacation, so I will not be surprised if you do > not hear from him for the next 12 days. > > Cheers. > > On May 8, 2025, at 1:39 AM, Ketan Talaulikar > wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > > Thanks for your email and I would like to request further clar

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-20

omain* -- In the meantime, I would request the authors and WG to continue work on addressing the review comments. Thanks, Ketan On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 8:00 PM Alan DeKok wrote: > Just a quick note: > > > On May 15, 2025, at 9:48 AM, Ketan Talaulikar > wrot

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24

will hopefully let subsets of this AD review move > forward. > KT> OK. Please let me know once the full set is ready/updated - either in github or posted - so I can review and get back. > > -- Jeff > > > On May 15, 2025, at 8:24 AM, Ketan Talaulikar > wrote: > > G

AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-stability-18

Hello Authors/WG, Thanks for the work put into this document. It has been in the works for a long time in an on/off mode. There is some more work needed before it can be taken up for IESG evaluation. I would like to share my review of the v18 of this document. General Comment/Suggestion: This is

AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24

Hello Authors/WG, Thanks for the work put into this document. I know this has been in the works for a long time but there is still some more work needed before it can be taken up for IESG evaluation. I would like to share my review of the v24 of this document. General Comment/Suggestion: This is

AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-20

Hello Authors/WG, Thanks for the work put into this document. I know this has been in the works for a long time but there is still some more work needed before it can be taken up for IESG evaluation. I would like to share my review of the v20 of this document. General Comment/Suggestion: This is

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-20

g does not appeal to you :-) Thanks, Ketan On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 9:40 AM Alan DeKok wrote: > On Jun 16, 2025, at 3:35 PM, Ketan Talaulikar > wrote: > > KT> I understand. However, the "update" is often associated with the > RFC/draft metadata "update" tag.

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-20

Hi Alan, Thanks for your response. Please check inline below for some clarifications and the rest sounds good to me. On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 2:09 PM Alan DeKok wrote: > On May 15, 2025, at 9:48 AM, Ketan Talaulikar > wrote: > > 85 1. Introduction > > > > 87 BF

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-stability-18

ork on the changes to the sequence numbers draft. Thanks, Ketan On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:54 AM Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > Hi Ketan, > > Please find enclosed the proposed changes to the draft. > > > > On Jun 9, 2025, at 6:43 AM, Ketan Talaulikar > wrote: >

AD review follow-up for YANG organization related aspects for the 3 BFD documents

Hello Authors, I got myself educated (a little bit) on the YANG modeling guidelines as part of the IESG review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/ Following are some YANG organization specific comments on each of the 3 documents. *1) For draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequen

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24

Med's email is about a high-level topic of YANG in experimental docs - that is being dealt separately so please let that part be for now. We can discuss/close on the YANG parts on my separate thread. Thanks, Ketan On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:46 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 2025, at 9:1

Re: AD review follow-up for YANG organization related aspects for the 3 BFD documents

e for netmod/IANA to put > together a generic script for such maintenance such that the organization > of an IANA registry for the protocol maintains the YANG generically. I.e., > don't create this work for every person you're asking to do YANG. > > -- Jeff > > > >

Re: AD review follow-up for YANG organization related aspects for the 3 BFD documents

Thanks Jeff. Mahesh, are you ok as well? Thanks, Ketan On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 7:23 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Ketan, > > > On Jun 4, 2025, at 3:12 AM, Ketan Talaulikar > wrote: > I got myself educated (a little bit) on the YANG modeling guidelines as > part of the I

Re: AD review follow-up for YANG organization related aspects for the 3 BFD documents

Hi Jeff, Please check inline below for responses. On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 9:04 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Ketan, > > > > On Jun 4, 2025, at 11:05 AM, Ketan Talaulikar > wrote: > > > > Allow me to step in to ensure that Med and Jeff are talking about the > same

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24

onish. Also for draft-ietf-bfd-stability. I'll put all 3 on hold at my end until I get a go ahead from the authors on all 3 before doing a final check/pass. If any response or clarification is required from my side before then, please let me know. Thanks, Ketan On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:5

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-stability-18

un 10, 2025 at 11:37 AM Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > Hi Mahesh, > > Thanks for sharing the updates. It looks good to me. Just some minor > suggestions: > > 1) Please see if you can leave out the "on the box" part out of the text > related to further analysis of the provide

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-stability-18

On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 1:38 AM Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > Hi Ketan, > > On May 15, 2025, at 4:05 AM, Ketan Talaulikar > wrote: > > Hello Authors/WG, > > Thanks for the work put into this document. It has been in the works for a > long time in an on/off mode. There

Re: Please review the 3 updated BFD auth documents

Hi Reshad/Authors, I saw an update posted and I believe there were offline discussions. Please let me know if the document is ready for IETF LC initiation? Mahesh, please do post the editorial nits and other such fixes on the next update so they don't catch further directorate and IESG reviews.

RE: Couple comments on draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy

Hi Greg, Thanks for your review and comments. Please check inline below for responses. From: Greg Mirsky Sent: 20 March 2018 08:57 To: draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-pol...@ietf.org; spring ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Couple comments on draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy Dear Authors, I've read the new

RE: Couple comments on draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy

and perhaps relevant to other signalled circuits and TE paths like RSVP-TE or MPLS-TP, but they do not seem appropriate for SR Policies to me. Thanks, Ketan From: Greg Mirsky Sent: 20 March 2018 16:58 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-pol...@ietf.org; spring ; rtg-bfd

RE: Couple comments on draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy

, the authors of draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy request that the analysis be done with SR architecture in mind and not just bringing in concepts from stateful and circuit oriented MPLS LSPs into SR Policies. Thanks, Ketan From: Greg Mirsky Sent: 21 March 2018 09:29 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant

FW: New Version Notification for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-00.txt

senak (ppsenak) ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Ketan Talaulikar and posted to the IETF repository. Name:

RE: [Idr] draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode

Hi Albert, Thanks for your feedback from an operator perspective – it is valuable. This “BFD hold up” behaviour that you desire is best handled by BFD since I would expect that similar behaviour would be desired across routing protocols (OSPF, ISIS, BGP) and perhaps other clients. IMHO this is

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Hi All, I would like to ask some questions and seek clarifications on this draft. 1. I am aware that this draft originates from practical pain points at a specific operator. During the adoption calls, the scenarios were debated in detail. It was basically a L2 WAN circuit service over a pro

RE: Adoption call for draft-cw-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 16 August, 2020)

Hi All, I believe the WG should adopt this document since this is a very useful extension for BFD protocol in specific scenarios. While the document needs more details on the applicability, operational guidance and procedures, it does provide a very good starting point for the WG to address thi