Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

... which was in the text below.  :-)

-- Jeff (clearly relaxation for the long weekend in the US is required...)

On 6/19/26 15:27, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>
> The following URL is a full diff vs. RFC 5883:
>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?url_1=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5883.txt&url_2=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt&iddiff=1
>
> On 6/15/26 02:20, [e-mail] wrote:
>> Hi Reshad,
>>
>> Many thanks for your review and comments.
>> Please see inline.
>> Original
>> *From: *ReshadRahman <[e-mail]>
>> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;肖敏10093570;
>> *Date: *2026年06月15日 00:53
>> *Subject: **Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt*
>> Hi Xiao Min,
>>
>> Thank you for taking this on.
>>
>> 2 comments/questions:
>> 1) There is no TOC (and neither did RFC5883), I'm assuming because 
>> it's a small document.
>> [XM]>>> Yes, that's done on purpose.
>>
>> 2) I believe you should reference RFC8174 too (as e.g. 5880-bis does).
>> [XM]>>> You're correct. I'll update Section 1.1 of both rfc5883bis 
>> and rfc5882bis to the latest template including the reference to RFC8174.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Xiao Min
>>
>> Regards,
>> Reshad.
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 10, 2026 at 03:24:37 AM EDT, [e-mail] 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'm the assigned editor for rfc5883bis which is intended to be 
>> progressed to an Internet Standard.
>> This is the 00 version wg draft, which is almost the same to rfc5883. 
>> The diff link is as below.
>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc5883&url2=draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00&difftype=--html 
>> <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc5883&url2=draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00&difftype=--html>
>> The major change is to add Section 9 "Implementation Status", which 
>> will be removed before publication.
>> In this version only the ZTE's implementation report is recorded, and 
>> the feature granularity is on each MUST/SHOULD/MAY statement.
>> As required by RFC 6410, one criterion for Internet Standard is "at 
>> least two independent interoperating implementations with widespread 
>> deployment and successful operational experience", so the 
>> implementation reports should be as more as possible. If you have an 
>> implementation report to share, please send it to the wg chairs and 
>> me, or you may send it to the list.
>> As requested by Jeff, this draft has also been uploaded to GitHub: 
>> https://github.com/bfd-wg/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis.
>> Much appreciate your review and comments.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Xiao Min
>> Original
>> *From: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
>> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
>> *Date: *2026年06月08日 20:39
>> *Subject: **I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt*
>> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt is now available. It is a
>> work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) WG of the IETF.
>>
>>    Title:   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths
>>    Authors: Dave Katz
>>             Dave Ward
>>             Xiao Min
>>    Name:    draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00.txt
>>    Pages:   8
>>    Dates:   2026-06-08
>>
>> Abstract:
>>
>>    This document describes the use of the Bidirectional Forwarding
>>    Detection (BFD) protocol over multihop paths, including
>>    unidirectional links.
>>
>>    This document obsoletes RFC 5883.
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis/
>>
>> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5883-bis-00
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>>
>>
>>