Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Greg,

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:17:02PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Carlos and Jeff,
> thank you for responding so expediently. I think we've reached the rough
> consensus. Attached are the diffs for both BFD documents and the updated
> copies. Please let me know if the changes being made have addressed all the
> comments received during the WGLC. I'll then upload new versions.

I believe this covers all points I've seen on the mailing list to date.

Please push the updates.

We'll have further discussion about the need for a registry in conjunction
with the Yang module implications discussion.

-- Jeff

> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
[...]
> > At this point it is also worth noting that the session type has no
> > centralized location covering their enumerations.  This leads to two
> > interesting observations:
> > - We could have an IANA registry for such things.  However, I'm not sure
> >   this is really need.  But this also means:
> > - Here's another case why some pieces of the BFD yang module likely shoudl
> >   be IANA maintained.  In this case, the bfd-path-type identity as the
> >   relevant example.