From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 11 16:10:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtsPL-0001ur-7S; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:09:55 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtsPJ-0001uk-Sg for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:09:53 -0500 Received: from fncnmp03.fnc.fujitsu.com ([168.127.0.56]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtsPB-0008BQ-Hb for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:09:53 -0500 Received: from rchemx01.fnc.net.local ([168.127.134.104]) by fncnmp03.fnc.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2006 15:09:44 -0600 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,521,1157346000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="71502157:sNHT28435356" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C71D68.AEAB0D34" Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:09:44 -0600 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BFD Status + Last Call Thread-Index: AccdaK5SlV7IyY+4RlOqQc8ppaDBOQ== From: "O'Connor, Don" To: , , X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1 Cc: rcallon@juniper.net, fenner@research.att.com, dkatz@juniper.net Subject: BFD Status + Last Call X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C71D68.AEAB0D34 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David and Jeffrey Considering that the BFD WG has not met for long time (I think the last = meeting may have been August 2005), the email list has been quiet, and = no Shepherding AD has been assigned per BFD Status on IETF tools: 1) What is the status of bfd-base, bfd-generic and bfd-mpls drafts?=20 2) Have they passed WG LC? 3) If so can they be sent to IESG LC? 4) What is the scheduled RFC completion date? Ross and Bill=20 Can a Shepherding AD be assigned? Regards Don=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C71D68.AEAB0D34 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BFD Status + Last Call

David and Jeffrey

Considering that the BFD WG has not met = for long time (I think the last meeting may have been August 2005), the = email list has been quiet, and no Shepherding AD has been assigned per = BFD Status on IETF tools:

1) What is the status of bfd-base, = bfd-generic and bfd-mpls drafts?

2) Have they passed WG LC?

3) If so can they be sent to IESG = LC?

4) What is the scheduled RFC completion = date?

Ross and Bill

Can a Shepherding AD be = assigned?

Regards

Don

------_=_NextPart_001_01C71D68.AEAB0D34-- From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 11 16:17:33 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtsWj-0003hb-AT; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:17:33 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtsWh-0003gy-Hi for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:17:31 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtsWe-0001CF-W1 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:17:31 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-8.cisco.com ([171.68.10.93]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2006 13:17:28 -0800 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-8.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBBLHSdF001238; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:17:28 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kBBLH7P3001532; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:17:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:17:21 -0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([171.68.225.134]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:17:21 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:17:19 -0600 From: David Ward To: "O'Connor, Don" , , , David Ward Message-ID: Thread-Topic: BFD Status + Last Call Thread-Index: AccdaK5SlV7IyY+4RlOqQc8ppaDBOQAAQ8aG In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3248695039_82598" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2006 21:17:21.0692 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF055DC0:01C71D69] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4435; t=1165871848; x=1166735848; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=sjdkim8002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dward@cisco.com; z=From:=20David=20Ward=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20BFD=20Status=20+=20Last=20Call=20 |Sender:=20; bh=t/k2RjMDBC7pWkQEhtxhaff4staADqxCuS7p2qutudQ=; b=Yf2gHbGFIKHweNrIzWtVyAFf+jIUyXn/pGMClUcUXsuQy3m1hTmiKHgkEOthjUcjOKmWyaOG 3glh3wPPVFbfAmHyqduV2Wlc4QEa3bBaOaDgZU/Hubhkxqy6hDk4ADMz; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8; header.From=dward@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/sjdkim8002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 Cc: rcallon@juniper.net, fenner@research.att.com, Dave Katz Subject: Re: BFD Status + Last Call X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3248695039_82598 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Don, et al - Dave and I are about to publish base-06. The MIB and bfd-mpls recently took a spin and p2mp bfd is about to come out. So, we are close but, not close enough to need a shepherding AD. The delay in BFD docs is due to the fact that a number of vendors have just completed implementation and various issues wrt interop and wording in the spec became obvious. So, Dave and Dav= e took the time to take the feedback and clarify the specs. It was the Right Thing =81 IMHO. Until this point, there were few implementations and we had received little feedback on the spec. I expect a WG meeting in Prague where I will go over the changes in the drafts and then LC. Then an AD shepherd=B9s those. I hope to discuss p2mp BFD as well. -DWard On 12/11/06 3:09 PM, "O'Connor, Don" wrote: > David and Jeffrey >=20 > Considering that the BFD WG has not met for long time (I think the last > meeting may have been August 2005), the email list has been quiet, and no > Shepherding AD has been assigned per BFD Status on IETF tools: >=20 > 1) What is the status of bfd-base, bfd-generic and bfd-mpls drafts? >=20 > 2) Have they passed WG LC? >=20 > 3) If so can they be sent to IESG LC? >=20 > 4) What is the scheduled RFC completion date? >=20 > Ross and Bill=20 >=20 > Can a Shepherding AD be assigned? >=20 > Regards=20 >=20 > Don=20 >=20 --B_3248695039_82598 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: BFD Status + Last Call Don, = et al -

Dave and I are about to publish base-06. The MIB and bfd-mpls recently took= a spin and p2mp bfd is about to come out. So, we are close but, not close e= nough to need a shepherding AD. The delay in BFD docs is due to the fact tha= t a number of vendors have just completed implementation and various issues = wrt interop and wording in the spec became obvious. So, Dave and Dave took t= he time to take the feedback and clarify the specs. It was the Right Thing &= #8482; IMHO. Until this point, there were few implementations and we had rec= eived little feedback on the spec.

I expect a WG meeting in Prague where I will go over the changes in the dra= fts and then LC. Then an AD shepherd’s those. I hope to discuss p2mp B= FD as well.

-DWard


On 12/11/06 3:09 PM, "O'Connor, Don" <don.oconnor@us.fujitsu.c= om> wrote:

David and Jeffrey

Considering that the BFD WG has not met for long = time (I think the last meeting may have been August 2005), the email list ha= s been quiet, and no Shepherding AD has been assigned per BFD Status on IETF= tools:

1) What is the status of bfd-base, bfd-generic an= d bfd-mpls drafts?

2) Have they passed WG LC?

3) If so can they be sent to IESG LC?

4) What is the scheduled RFC completion date?

Ross and Bill

Can a Shepherding AD be assigned?

Regards

Don


--B_3248695039_82598--