Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16 August, 2020)

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

I support this document with exactly same points Les’s made, it should progress as informational.

Regards,
Jeff

> On Aug 17, 2020, at 20:36, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Sorry to be tardy in responding...
> 
> As I stated almost 2 years ago when this draft was introduced:
> 
> a)The problem the draft is addressing is real and the solution useful
> 
> b)There are implementations which have already addressed this problem with no interoperability issues
> 
> c)I do not see that any changes have been made to the BFD protocol (e.g. RFC 5881)
> 
> Therefore, I think this should go forward - but as Informational.
> 
>   Les
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rtg-bfd <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
>> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:45 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited (ending 16
>> August, 2020)
>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:21:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>>> Working Group,
>>> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/
>>> 
>>> With apologies to the authors of BFD unsolicited, this document is past due
>>> for Working Group Last Call.  The primary holdup on the document had
>> been
>>> last minute interaction with the RFC Editor with regard to its impact on the
>>> BFD Yang model.  That work had completed some time ago.  (The Yang
>> model,
>>> however, is still lingering in MISREF state.)
>>> 
>>> This begins a last call period ending on 16 August.
>> 
>> The last call period has ended with a few comments from Greg and Raj that
>> should be addressed before we continue.
>> 
>> It'd also be helpful to hear from additional reviewers before we advance
>> this document.
>> 
>> -- Jeff
>