IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-08

"Palanivelan A (apvelan)" <apvelan@cisco.com> Sat, 30 October 2010 07:00 UTC

Return-Path: <apvelan@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275323A682C for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.270, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gexZGgqgoPc0 for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00883A67A8 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApcEAItfy0yQ/khNgWdsb2JhbAChRxUBARYiIqAZm2GFRASEVYkN
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,263,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="12303654"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2010 07:01:54 +0000
Received: from xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com [72.163.129.202]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9U71qKj021609; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:01:54 GMT
Received: from xmb-bgl-411.cisco.com ([72.163.129.207]) by xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:31:53 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-08
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:31:43 +0530
Message-ID: <D4A66B38FC6C6E4F820A2470AEEA5CED02D58C1C@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C789A153-C01A-4D46-9915-D6A01D9EE3E9@juniper.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-08
Thread-Index: Act3i65W1yk6Mk4jT46fkkpkBhpHuAAdEsRQ
References: <FB649DA20153634794BEBBAB504DA1AD4506130D74@EMBX02-BNG.jnpr.net> <C2E157D9-DB69-43D8-BB86-E148A93BA9EE@juniper.net> <D4A66B38FC6C6E4F820A2470AEEA5CED02D587DF@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com> <624AA73F-B922-45D4-B934-1BFD9F9E629D@juniper.net> <AANLkTik2gL3Cd3jwcifCaQRmrWRWhYSZLoYuPLkb7=tv@mail.gmail.com> <C00F7E81-49DF-4515-85AF-47ED6A0ECB2D@juniper.net> <D4A66B38FC6C6E4F820A2470AEEA5CED02D589FE@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com> <C789A153-C01A-4D46-9915-D6A01D9EE3E9@juniper.net>
From: "Palanivelan A (apvelan)" <apvelan@cisco.com>
To: Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2010 07:01:53.0954 (UTC) FILETIME=[55795820:01CB7800]
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:00:00 -0000

Hi Dave,

Thanks for that encouraging mail. Let me do it as per your suggestion
and analyzing and discussing the gaps in depth definitely helps.

Regards,
A.Palanivelan

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Katz [mailto:dkatz@juniper.net] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 10:34 PM
To: Palanivelan A (apvelan)
Cc: rtg-bfd WG
Subject: Re: draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-08


On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:33 AM, Palanivelan A (apvelan) wrote:

> My experience with the process is not much to talk about but let me
> confirm it is not easy even to get it to Historic :).
> I loved to be part of working group in working through this document
and
> unfortunately it did not happen. 
> 
> Any good suggestions in how to go about, I would love to take it Dave.

If the group thinks it to be worthwhile (I personally think it would
be), it would be quite valuable to discuss the GR issues on this list,
particularly any that you've run across that we did not foresee, with
the goal of producing a BCP that more thoroughly documents how the
various pieces of BFD and the control protocols might be pulled together
to achieve GR.  If you feel that our technical evaluation of your
proposal is in error, or that the existing mechanisms are insufficient
and yours adds value, that would be extremely helpful as well.

Thanks,

--Dave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email