Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-04

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

I do not remember the persons (it was more than one) who provided this
comment.

We will make the following changes (unless there are any objections):

s/ OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD/ OSPF BFD Strict-Mode
s/ Strict-Mode for BFD / BFD Strict-Mode
similar ...

Thanks,
Ketan


On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 10:13 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ketan,
>
> Do you remember who this comment came from?  I definitely think anyone who
> reads the abstract of the draft wouldn’t be confused and don’t agree with
> the comment.
>
>
>
> Also, this is meant to be a per-interface sub-option of the existing BFD
> configuration – right? There is at least one place that would lead one to
> believe it is pre-node.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 10:31 AM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=[e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for
> BFD" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-04
>
>
>
> Hi Acee,
>
>
>
> The authors had picked the term "*OSPF BFD Strict-Mode*" originally -
> please refer to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-01.
> However, post IETF presentation, we got feedback from WG members that the
> term was misleading and gave an impression that the proposal was
> introducing a "strict-mode" in BFD. What we are doing is introducing a
> "strict-mode" of operation in OSPF for BFD usage.
>
>
>
> We are open to any suggestions for change/clarity.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:07 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Speaking as Document Shepherd:
>
>
>
> I have some editorial comments that I will pass on to the authors offline.
> One change I didn’t suggest since it was a big change was from “Strict-Mode
> for BFD” to simply “BFD Strict-Mode”. What are your thoughts on this?
>
>
>
> We’ve had some good discussion and an updated version is coming with some
> updates based on that discussion. Remember that we don’t necessarily have
> to incorporate every suggested change but simply need to conclude the
> discussion.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, January 28, 2022 at 7:24 AM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for
> BFD" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-04
>
>
>
> Speaking as WG member:
>
>
>
> I support publication of the document. As indicated by the Albert Fu, it
> has been implemented by two vendors. I will provide WG Last Call comments
> when I prepare the Shepherd’s report.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsr <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)"
> <acee=[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:09 PM
> *To: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD" -
> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-04
>
>
>
> LSR WG,
>
>
>
> This begins a two week last call for the subject draft. Please indicate
> your support or objection on this list prior to 12:00 AM UTC on February 11
> th, 20222. Also, review comments are certainly welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>