Re: IETF-106 agenda?
Greg Mirsky <email@example.com> Fri, 01 November 2019 20:28 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A803D120A31 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([22.214.171.124]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lwsXn_HSPfw1 for <email@example.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2194F1209A6 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id t5so11497364ljk.0 for <email@example.com>; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NZHFsIgUZnag6os0b+vNZbJG74JtvahZxdutO+cPyP0=; b=cCt5zOUO7UETuw68T0qotinsGF/aUKtcuny8RwzrKP/xq03+G38HkKTMhVwTvxRNwH SfUVKhsMjpS3O7rQeqxOGlEldcOOfdzRGyhTJFzzqlnBWbz5LKvj0cae6JMhcgu37Uf8 fTbBWffB7lDGpEGZC5UFING8eSWGdx/H3CWdhA4CWhPm6WWrm+cs02oLlKXTDLrSCW2z t23WucnLuj+ArxcGRSXQsmwvmA9JPbp8xUzMrIn1Fzpz09XBOEKPkVNdS0ZalLYGxJqo 1bei/jO9KMnjMRxfJVF86PwI1965WQSp+PnDe09vh/Ccez88/MZoli3KZANKHQvu8bNm ++Xw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NZHFsIgUZnag6os0b+vNZbJG74JtvahZxdutO+cPyP0=; b=kEF9mD7YgSx5twkjuP1Yt7RM1jV5OkZvJPUZH1SxcNVvumYeu5t2POE0X+LzFNyP8z fbsItw5WSyX+YLlFcruKHNie8eTQMH1mR5R0iY932aWcBVkSNezIl56ATe3b7Ur2Fho1 9uD0b7GLd1p0g7DuYXpB+cbS6n0owWWAx13E1TWqd+tUUc/x432NumBlWigmh2Gxujtg hldX7XOxxWH1xT7XY+urZHpNStVxal1vevQnzgnduX6QkneKrpX0jl3mNNe/cRB6g9i+ NwjlteBIWVwBonwddA/6rdIMMFldIDy3bzy+UgL1T4mJmYVNK8TB9lFM6Wj2RS3au+Ib M1Jg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX6kA7ZZGGEf5z/QquZ55WD8pgdNF0skW3nnaJfWtvBIFG0AJse 1EBMTmRqPGx87vYbDJLKOPMYc4Y9VRjCt8SEfeU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3612:: with SMTP id d18mr9614523lja.222.1572640039120; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Mirsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:27:08 -0700
Subject: Re: IETF-106 agenda?
To: Jeffrey Haas <email@example.com>
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <email@example.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e432f405964eca85"
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 20:28:35 -0000
Hi Jeff, et al., I think that it will be of interest to the group to get an update on the draft-mirmin-bfd-extended. We've added details on the use of the Padding TLV. Also, would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the status of draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand at the meeting. Regards, Greg On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:12 AM Jeffrey Haas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Working Group, > > A session request had gone in for IETF 106 to accommodate the need for a > possible session. The agenda, to this point, had been left as an open > question primarily to accommodate need to close on lingering questions in > active work. In particular, this was for two items: > > - BFD for vxlan > - BFD for Large Packets > > (For transparency, I am an author on BFD for large packets) > > As of this afternoon, we seem to have drafts submitted that cover the known > open issues on both of these drafts. In particular, the work to get us to > the latest draft for the vxlan document took over 150 messages. > > If BFD meets, agenda time was primarily reserved to reconcile open issues > on > these documents. > > Discussion on BFDv2 is currently deferred for next IETF to focus the > Working > Group's limited attention on closing open work. > > That said, if we have other topics to consider, please submit them for > consideration. If we have no such topics, and the discussion on the above > two drafts seems likely to conclude well over e-mail, we may consider > canceling the session. > > As a final note, since Reshad is unable to make it to IETF-106, if we do > decide to continue with our meeting, we will require the commitment for a > minutes taker. Reshad and I often will cover that for each other over the > course of a session, but I won't be able to sustain that on my own. > > -- Jeff, for the chairs. > >