Pending issues?

Carlos Garcia Braschi <cgbraschi@gmail.com> Thu, 21 April 2005 13:36 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=OL1tbDCNgn9wHr3OytSK6nys5AIeS4Xsu2ygl/N7QhrIIPCKRtySF7YX6h1flujG1v4h50Zk3iY6KilN+oRyk3z8BXbIoLGxIDRpmagKgpw7XU4zf0stQwwLcl2wMgj+D56k2YHHG/kP9RDJNgXmVOwDn4ablVrWI1Y0kqDwHnI=
Message-ID: <9e31186f050421063668a536eb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:36:11 +0200
From: Carlos Garcia Braschi <cgbraschi@gmail.com>
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Pending issues?
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Carlos Garcia Braschi <cgbraschi@gmail.com>
Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

After a little action after the IETF meeting, traffic about new
questions regarding the protocol has been dwindling. There seems to be
no pending issues with the current drafts, and little wording to be
added to the drafts (Admin Down issue, AFAIK).
Is there something keeping the drafts from moving forward? (apart from
the workload on the authors, of course :-).

On the other hand, I still do not have a clear understanding on how
the issue of application to static routes, BGP (and I would like also
to add RIP) could be progressed. Last time we wrote about a separate
draft, would it be done in this WG? Or should it go to the home WG of
the routing protocols? (actually it seems only BGP has a WG now...).

For RIP and static routes there does not seem to me to be a need for
changes to be made to the protocols on the wire. I do not know for BGP
(haven't been able to find the details of the proposal), but does not
seem to be needed, either, so this WG could be the place...

Regards,
Carlos.

Pending issues? Carlos Garcia Braschi