Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:30:26 -0400

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 02:54:06PM +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> Many thanks for this review!
> 
> You raise two good questions, here’s my take:
> I do not have a strong opinion one way or another — I will leave this one to the AD’s guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as updating RFC 5881 if that’s the preferred direction.
> Indeed — fixed in our working copy.

I'm of mixed opinion to mark it as updating.  The bulk of the functionality
is separate procedures from RFC 5881.  The only thing that is updated is the
echo port, which 5881 leaves very much out of scope for what is carried on
that port.

I agree that it's worth leaving the final call to Álvaro.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:36:34 +0000

On 4/11/16, 12:30 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi!

>> You raise two good questions, here¹s my take:
>> I do not have a strong opinion one way or another ‹ I will leave this
>>one to the AD¹s guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as
>>updating RFC 5881 if that¹s the preferred direction.
>> Indeed ‹ fixed in our working copy.
>

I don't think this document needs to be marked as updating 5881 because it
doesn't change the procedures from that RFC, it enhances/extends with
optional functionality (I.e. What is specified here is not needed for 5881
implementations to interoperate).

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:32:01 +0000

> On Apr 11, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Works for me — agreed.

Thanks,

— Carlos.