Re: IETF-106 agenda?

Greg Mirsky <> Fri, 01 November 2019 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A803D120A31 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lwsXn_HSPfw1 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2194F1209A6 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t5so11497364ljk.0 for <>; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy91W/9z58tbU64IRV/teiq5G65vY4hVT0CF3jHNluOt4Fk6yssjKF6H42ovRncVW8d8PMKnYVPQomb7mYpZQM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3612:: with SMTP id d18mr9614523lja.222.1572640039120; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:27:08 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IETF-106 agenda?
To: Jeffrey Haas <>
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e432f405964eca85"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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
Also, would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the status
of draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand at the meeting.


On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:12 AM Jeffrey Haas <> 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.