From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Sent: 28 August 2021 03:56
Dear Authors, thank you for your work on this document. I've read the draft and have a question, and a suggestion. Section 7.6.4<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm#section-7.6.4> describes how BFD is controlled in vpn-common. I've noticed that you use references to RFC 5880. While that is the basis for all subsequent BFD documents, for BFD YANG data model draft-ietf-bfd-yang<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/> may be more useful. <tp> Greg I think that the authors have got this one right (although I disagree with much else as I have commented on Last Call:-(, If you look at the history of bfd-yang you will see that nothing has happened to it for over three years despite concerted efforts to get it moving, so in the interests of this becoming an RFC within the next three years (!), I would not want to see the reference changed. Tom Petch Perhaps the container oam can re-use grouping base-cfg-parms. What are your thoughts? Regards, Greg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
