Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:21:00 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications
        Authors         : Enke Chen
                          Naiming Shen
                          Robert Raszuk
                          Reshad Rahman
	Filename        : draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-06.txt
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2021-10-21

Abstract:
   For operational simplification of "sessionless" applications using
   BFD, in this document we present procedures for "unsolicited BFD"
   that allow a BFD session to be initiated by only one side, and be
   established without explicit per-session configuration or
   registration by the other side (subject to certain per-interface or
   per-router policies).

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/

There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-06

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: t petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:56:41 +0100

I am not sure what this changes but my previous comments still apply.

In addition, the reference to bfd-yang needs updating now that the RFC 
is published.

Tom Petch

On 21/10/2021 23:21, [email-masked] wrote:
> .

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:59:58 -0400

Tom,

Minimally it updates one of the revision clauses, which I had missed. It's likely the one you're noting was an issue.

If you could respond to the other mail we can try to close off on the issues you're raising.

-- Jeff

> On Oct 21, 2021, at 6:21 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
>

---

From: t petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 16:40:39 +0100

> If you could respond to the other mail we can try to close off on the issues you're raising.

I posted a response 2021-10-22 08:38 UTC and I see it in the BFD WG 
archives with a 'To: Jeffrey Haas'.

Tom Petch

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:38:18 -0400

Thanks, Tom.  I can see it in the archive.

Your employer uses Outlook.com <http://outlook.com/> as a backend and that mail ran into a bug with postgrey.  I've disabled the plugin on my end temporarily until I can upgrade it.

-- Jeff (about to now get 15x more spam...)

> On Oct 22, 2021, at 11:40 AM, t petch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I posted a response 2021-10-22 08:38 UTC and I see it in the BFD WG archives with a 'To: Jeffrey Haas'.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
>> -- Jeff
>> 
>>