[karp] draft-ietf-karp-bfd-analysis-01

"Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 11 February 2014 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6101A0547; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:29:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VOpcgmDM0KpK; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:29:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DE51A050E; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-64.lucent.com []) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s1BFTNNJ010126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:29:24 -0600 (CST)
Received: from US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com []) by us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s1BFTNLx026029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:29:23 -0500
Received: from SG70XWXCHHUB02.zap.alcatel-lucent.com ( by US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:29:23 -0500
Received: from SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com ([]) by SG70XWXCHHUB02.zap.alcatel-lucent.com ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:29:02 +0800
From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-karp-bfd-analysis-01
Thread-Index: Ac8nPfvHS7qvGuoGRoqR9yH1fZZ/Vg==
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:29:01 +0000
Message-ID: <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E587804@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on
Cc: "karp@ietf.org" <karp@ietf.org>
Subject: [karp] draft-ietf-karp-bfd-analysis-01
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp/>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:29:26 -0000


Can the BFD WG members review draft-ietf-karp-bfd-analysis-01? 

We (the authors) think we're done with the gap analysis. 

Would be great to hear from the WG on whether they think we've accurately captured the gaps and if they're gaps in our understanding of the gaps.

Cheers, Manav