Re:Adoption call for draft-cw-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 16 August,2020)

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Wed, 05 August 2020 02:38 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA0F3A10F0 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 19:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AVWqRj-fSrqs for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 19:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F0EC3A1086 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 19:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.215]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 8B78C88960A0EF5201C1 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:38:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 77684610C86B608B658E; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:38:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 0752bxp2042351; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:37:59 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:37:59 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:37:59 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb5f2a1b87aa884d7b
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202008051037596217779@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <20200804131549.GA31729@pfrc.org>
References: 20200804131549.GA31729@pfrc.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
To: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6QWRvcHRpb24gY2FsbCBmb3IgZHJhZnQtY3ctYmZkLXVuYWZmaWxpYXRlZC1lY2hvIChlbmRpbmcgMTYgQXVndXN0LDIwMjAp?=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 0752bxp2042351
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/f2sAVawZvQD1k7F6Q4C4lSGawOk>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 02:38:13 -0000

Hi all,






I support WG adoption of this draft (as co-author).


At the same time, I support to change its status to Proposed Standard, and add tag of "Updates RFC5880".






Best Regards,


Xiao Min




原始邮件



发件人:JeffreyHaas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
收件人:rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>rg>;
日 期 :2020年08月04日 21:04
主 题 :Adoption call for draft-cw-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 16 August,2020)


Working Group,

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cw-bfd-unaffiliated-echo/

At the virtual IETF 108, Unaffiliated BFD Echo Function was presented.  This
is a followup of a presentation given at IETF 106.

The authors have indicated they would like to have this work adopted by the
BFD WG.  This begins the adoption call ending August 16.  Please respond to
the mailing list with your thoughts on this adoption.

It should be noted that this document overlaps work in the Broadband Forum
(BBF) document TR-146.  As noted in the presentation, the BBF document lacks
some clarity and also doesn't discuss interactions with BFD implementations.
This draft has good clarifications with regard to implementations of this
mechanism when the a BFD Echo-capable implementation is used.

This raises two points to consider as part of adoption:
- This document with its current goals would Update RFC 5880.
- The status of this document would need to be Proposed Standard.

-- Jeff