+1 Regards, Jeff
> On Jun 4, 2021, at 14:16, John E Drake <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > Please use time synchronization only – it’s a much simpler and more robust > solution. > > Yours Irrespectively, > > John > > > Juniper Business Use Only > From: BESS <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 5:19 AM > To: 'BESS' <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [bess] WG POLL: Moving forward draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery > by dropping "Handshake" option > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > Hi WG, > > Just as a reminder, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery currently proposes > two options: 1) use time synchronization, 2) Use handshake. > > We have issues moving forward the draft because of some controversy on the > handshake option while the time sync option seems to have implementations. > > It seems that the authors/co-authors agreed to progress the document by > removing the handshake option, leaving the “time sync” as the core of the > document. > > As the document is a WG document, we (chairs) need to confirm that there is > no objection from the WG progressing the document in such a way. > > Please provide your feedback. > > We are opening a poll starting today and ending on **** 18th June **** to > gather feedbacks. > > Thanks, > > Stephane > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
