On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 04:42:40PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote: > Hi Bob, > thank you for the continued discussion and the most specific comments. > Please find my answers in-line tagged GIM>>. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Bob Briscoe <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > > > > 7/ Scope > > [ALL RESOLVED] > > > > 8/ Incremental deployment > > [UNRESOLVED] The text remains unchanged. > > There seems to be a misunderstanding about this comment. Carlos Pignataro > > has > > explained on the list, but people seem to keep misunderstanding him too. > > The > > text in 5.4.1 simply needs to clarify that implementations that do not > > support > > the multipoint-BFD specification are not required to use the PointToPoint > > value > > of bfd.SessionType (such non-multipoint implementations are > > point-to-point but > > they don't have to say they are). > > > GIM>> I disagree. PointToPoint is the new value for the bfd.SessionType > variable added in this specification with scope of bfd.SessionType being > RFC 5880 and mpBFD. bfd.SessionType variable was added in RFC 7880 with > scope of S-BFD only, excluding RFC 5880. If this specification updates RFC > 7880 in regard to the scope of bfd.SessionType, then the statement in > section 6.1 RFC 7880: > The bfd.SessionType variable MUST be initialized to the appropriate > type when an S-BFD session is created. > is replaced by the one from section 5.4.1 of this specification: > This variable MUST be initialized to the appropriate type when > the session is created. Would this necessitate adding an Updates: 7880 header? -Benjamin > > > ==New Nits== > > > > 1. Intro: > > s/enables a tail monitor availability/ > > /enables a tail to monitor availability/ > > > GIM>> Thank you. Should it become, including suggestion by Eric: > > .... allows a tail to monitor the availability ...
