Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

The following URL is a full diff vs. RFC 5883:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?url_1=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5883.txt&url_2=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt&iddiff=1

On 6/15/26 02:20, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Reshad,
>
> Many thanks for your review and comments.
> Please see inline.
> Original
> *From: *ReshadRahman <[e-mail]>
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;肖敏10093570;
> *Date: *2026年06月15日 00:53
> *Subject: **Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt*
> Hi Xiao Min,
>
> Thank you for taking this on.
>
> 2 comments/questions:
> 1) There is no TOC (and neither did RFC5883), I'm assuming because 
> it's a small document.
> [XM]>>> Yes, that's done on purpose.
>
> 2) I believe you should reference RFC8174 too (as e.g. 5880-bis does).
> [XM]>>> You're correct. I'll update Section 1.1 of both rfc5883bis and 
> rfc5882bis to the latest template including the reference to RFC8174.
>
> Cheers,
> Xiao Min
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2026 at 03:24:37 AM EDT, [e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'm the assigned editor for rfc5883bis which is intended to be 
> progressed to an Internet Standard.
> This is the 00 version wg draft, which is almost the same to rfc5883. 
> The diff link is as below.
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc5883&url2=draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00&difftype=--html 
> <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc5883&url2=draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00&difftype=--html>
> The major change is to add Section 9 "Implementation Status", which 
> will be removed before publication.
> In this version only the ZTE's implementation report is recorded, and 
> the feature granularity is on each MUST/SHOULD/MAY statement.
> As required by RFC 6410, one criterion for Internet Standard is "at 
> least two independent interoperating implementations with widespread 
> deployment and successful operational experience", so the 
> implementation reports should be as more as possible. If you have an 
> implementation report to share, please send it to the wg chairs and 
> me, or you may send it to the list.
> As requested by Jeff, this draft has also been uploaded to GitHub: 
> https://github.com/bfd-wg/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis.
> Much appreciate your review and comments.
>
> Best Regards,
> Xiao Min
> Original
> *From: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> *Date: *2026年06月08日 20:39
> *Subject: **I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt*
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt is now available. It is a
> work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) WG of the IETF.
>
>    Title:   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths
>    Authors: Dave Katz
>             Dave Ward
>             Xiao Min
>    Name:    draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt
>    Pages:   8
>    Dates:   2026-06-08
>
> Abstract:
>
>    This document describes the use of the Bidirectional Forwarding
>    Detection (BFD) protocol over multihop paths, including
>    unidirectional links.
>
>    This document obsoletes RFC 5883.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis/
>
> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
>