Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-05

I must agree with Job here.

In fact WG last call in general makes sense when spec is rock solid. And
very often issues come up during its implementations.

So while it may be up to chairs and ADs I am not sure why do we proceed
like this here in IDR.

On the draft itself I am not supporting it in current format (burden to use
extra SAFI on clients) IMO is not necessary.

Many thx
R.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 19:31 Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Are there implementations? Is there an implemention report as per IDR
> tradition?
>
> If not, I don’t support progressing this draft at this moment.
>
> The machinery described in this draft is not entirely straight forward,
> without running code we should hold off on progressing.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 at 08:06, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
>> This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-rs-bfd-05.txt.  You can obtain
>> the document at:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd/
>>
>>
>>
>> In your comments, please consider if:
>>
>> 1)      Do you know of any deployments of this technology in the
>> Internet?
>>
>> 2)      Do you believe this technology is ready for standardization?
>>
>> 3)      Does this technology have the management necessary for
>> deployment in the Internet?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan Hares
>>
>> Co-chair
>>
>> Shepherd
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-05 - 2 Week WG LC from 4/13 to 4/27