Re: A question about RFC5884

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:25:38AM +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> I had not suggested it, but I think that idea has merit. If there are enough updates needed to the spec based on additional running-code learning, or ambiguities that are causing interoperable confusion, the net of a -biz can be positive.
> 
> When that same idea crossed my mind, I thought that the question should be part of a larger consideration from the chairs of maturity, pipeline, and advancement of BFD specs, and not taken in isolation. 5884 seems to require localized fixes only.
> 

Thus far my reading of the thread is that when you pedantically consider
each of the involved specs, we're not to the point where we'd need to update
the procedures in 5884.  The issues seem to occur if you're willing to "read
between the lines".

As a reminder, when the RFCs appear to be broken or unclear, the Errata
feature available in the datatracker can allow issues to be filed.  These
issues are considered when it's time to update the RFC.

-- Jeff