Re:IETF-106 agenda?

<> Mon, 11 November 2019 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9EA12020A for <>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 22:50:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W_48uZySwxcr for <>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 22:50:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C637312013D for <>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 22:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 14DFECDDFB98988407EC for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:50:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 026B31F74AF5228C83B2; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:50:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id xAB6mlUe003806; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:48:47 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:48:47 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:48:47 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5dc9044f59d9d221
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <>
To: <>
Cc: <>, <>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6SUVURi0xMDYgYWdlbmRhPw==?=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: xAB6mlUe003806
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:50:41 -0000

Hi Jeff,

I could be one minutes taker if no others experienced volunteered.

Best Regards,

Xiao Min


发件人:JeffreyHaas <>
收件人 <>rg>;
抄送人:Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <>om>;
日 期 :2019年11月10日 03:28
主 题 :Re: IETF-106 agenda?

Working Group,

We will be attempting to meet at IETF-106.  There's just enough business to
discuss to warrant using our time slot.

Note as below: We do not currently have a minutes taker.  If we do not have
one (ideally volunteering ahead of time) by meeting start time, we will
suspend without a meeting.

The authors of BFD for vxlan are requested to prepare slides covering
changes since the last IETF and a summary of the rather energetic discussion
we've had since that meeting.  Additionally, please summarize the open
issues since we have a few still being discussed on the list.

Please recall that BFD is meeting on Tuesday.  Please send me your slides by


Current targeted agenda:

Chairs update:
  5 mins - Jeff Haas

BFD for vxlan: 
  15 minutes - TBD

BFD for Large Packets:
  5 minutes - Jeff

BFD Demand Mode:
  10 minutes - Greg

Using One-Arm BFD in Cloud Network:
  10 minutes

-- Jeff

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:15:35PM -0400, 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.