Skip to main content

Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-01-28
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-01-11
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-01-04
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-10-19
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from Waiting on Authors
2015-10-19
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors
2015-10-19
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-10-19
04 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-10-19
04 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-10-19
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2015-10-19
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-10-19
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-10-19
04 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2015-10-19
04 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2015-10-19
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Bradner.
2015-10-15
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2015-10-14
04 Vengada Prasad Govindan IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-10-14
04 Vengada Prasad Govindan New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-04.txt
2015-10-14
03 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-10-14
03 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to aretana@cisco.com
2015-10-14
03 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-10-14
03 (System) Notify list changed from "Jeffrey Haas" , draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com to (None)
2015-10-14
03 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-10-14
03 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-10-14
03 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-10-14
03 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-10-14
03 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-10-14
03 Brian Haberman
[Ballot comment]
Just a question on this draft... Given its status as clarifying (and updating) RFC 5884, does it also inherit any of the …
[Ballot comment]
Just a question on this draft... Given its status as clarifying (and updating) RFC 5884, does it also inherit any of the IPR claims levied against RFC 5884?
2015-10-14
03 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-10-13
03 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this draft.  I'd just ask that you expand out BFD on first use since it is an acronym …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this draft.  I'd just ask that you expand out BFD on first use since it is an acronym used frequently in the draft.
2015-10-13
03 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-10-13
03 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-10-12
03 Joel Jaeggli
[Ballot comment]
Scott Bradner did the Opsdir review

I have done a OPS-DIR review of "Clarifications to RFC 5884

summary - ready for publication …
[Ballot comment]
Scott Bradner did the Opsdir review

I have done a OPS-DIR review of "Clarifications to RFC 5884

summary - ready for publication

This document clarifies how best to operate multiple BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) sessions in MPLS environments. 
Any document that purports to clarify operational procedures is, by definition, a good thing when it comes
to operational impact, assuming the document is clear and makes sense.  This document is clear and makes sense.

One suggestion though.
The first observation in Section 2.3 says:

      The BFD session MAY be removed in the egress LSR if the BFD
      session transitions from UP to DOWN.  This can be done after the
      expiry of a configurable timer started after the BFD session state
      transitions from UP to DOWN at the egress LSR.

It might be helpful to specifically say what the aim of using such a timer is.  My guess is that the
timer is used to introduce hysteresis to reduce flapping - but it would nice to say one way or the other
2015-10-12
03 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-10-12
03 Christer Holmberg Assignment of request for Telechat review by GENART to Christer Holmberg was rejected
2015-10-08
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2015-10-08
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2015-10-08
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-10-08
03 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2015-10-08
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stephen Kent.
2015-10-08
03 Alvaro Retana Ballot has been issued
2015-10-08
03 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-10-08
03 Alvaro Retana Created "Approve" ballot
2015-10-08
03 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was changed
2015-10-08
03 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2015-10-08
03 Alvaro Retana Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-10-08
03 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-10-07
03 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com from "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org
2015-10-03
02 Vengada Prasad Govindan IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-10-03
03 Vengada Prasad Govindan New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-03.txt
2015-10-01
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent
2015-10-01
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent
2015-09-30
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner
2015-09-30
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner
2015-09-25
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-09-25
02 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2015-09-24
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2015-09-24
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2015-09-24
02 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-09-24
02 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Clarifications to RFC 5884) …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Clarifications to RFC 5884) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection WG (bfd) to consider the following document:
- 'Clarifications to RFC 5884'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-10-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document clarifies the procedures for establishing, maintaining
  and removing multiple, concurrent BFD sessions for a given  described in RFC5884.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-09-24
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-09-24
02 Alvaro Retana Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-10-15
2015-09-24
02 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2015-09-24
02 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2015-09-24
02 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was generated
2015-09-24
02 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2015-09-24
02 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2015-09-24
02 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2015-09-24
02 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org from "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>
2015-09-24
02 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-09-01
02 Jeffrey Haas
: Document Writeup for Working Group Documents
:
: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
: Shepherd …
: Document Writeup for Working Group Documents
:
: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
: Shepherd Write-Up.
:
: Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
:
: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
: Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
: this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
: page header?

Proposed standard.  Since this updates RFC 5884, which is also
on the standards track, this status is appropriate.

: (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
: Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
: examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
: documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
:
: Technical Summary:

This document clarifies the procedures for establishing, maintaining
and removing multiple, concurrent BFD sessions for a given
described in RFC5884.

: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
: introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
: there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
:
: Working Group Summary:
:
: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
: there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where
: the consensus was particularly rough?

This document received good discussion among the usual key contributors
to the BFD Working Group.  Nothing controversial was discussed, the
clarifications are considered sound practice.

: Document Quality:

: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
: number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
: Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
: thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
: conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
: MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
: (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
: request posted?

RFC 5884 is implemented by a number of vendors that support MPLS and BFD
to verify those MPLS LSPs.  This clarifications document was motivated
by some ambiguities in that RFC which were noted as implementors were
attempting to implement some of the edge cases.  Implementations are
expected to pick up the changes in this document soon if they are not
otherwise implemented already.

This document does not impact backward compatibility.

: Personnel:
:
: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Jeffrey Haas, co-chair BFD.
Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana.

: (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
: the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
: publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
: IESG.

The shepherd was involved in the discussion of the feature, but not a
primary participant.  Editorial passes have been done for language and
technical content.

: (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
: breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The level of review is considered good.  Additionally, the document
shared its last call with the MPLS Working Group, which has an interest
in the fate of this document.

: (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
: broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
: DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
: place.

No.

: (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
: has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
: IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
: with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
: is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
: has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
: concerns here.

None.

: (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
: disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
: and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

: (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
: so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
: disclosures.

No additional IPR has been noted for this document.  Note that the base
RFC 5884 document does have IPR:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=5884&submit=rfc

: (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
: represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
: silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is solid consensus behind the document's contents.  The last call
unfortunately suffered from Working Group attention exhaustion and took
a bit of work to get this consensus validated.

: (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
: discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
: email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
: separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

: (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
: document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
: Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
: thorough.

No nits.

: (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
: criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None required.

: (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
: normative or informative?

All references are normative.

: (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
: advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
: references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All referenced documents are RFCs.

: (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
: If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
: the Last Call procedure.

No.

: (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
: RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
: abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
: in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
: the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
: is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
: the WG considers it unnecessary.

Yes.  This document updates RFC 5884 and is flagged appropriately.

: (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
: section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
: document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
: are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
: Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
: identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
: detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
: allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
: reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document properly asks nothing of IANA.

: (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
: allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
: in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

: (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
: Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
: language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.

2015-09-01
02 Jeffrey Haas
: Document Writeup for Working Group Documents
:
: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
: Shepherd …
: Document Writeup for Working Group Documents
:
: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
: Shepherd Write-Up.
:
: Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
:
: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
: Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
: this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
: page header?

Internet standard.  Since this updates RFC 5884, which is also
on the standards track, this status is appropriate.

: (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
: Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
: examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
: documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
:
: Technical Summary:

This document clarifies the procedures for establishing, maintaining
and removing multiple, concurrent BFD sessions for a given
described in RFC5884.

: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
: introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
: there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
:
: Working Group Summary:
:
: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
: there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where
: the consensus was particularly rough?

This document received good discussion among the usual key contributors
to the BFD Working Group.  Nothing controversial was discussed, the
clarifications are considered sound practice.

: Document Quality:

: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
: number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
: Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
: thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
: conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
: MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
: (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
: request posted?

RFC 5884 is implemented by a number of vendors that support MPLS and BFD
to verify those MPLS LSPs.  This clarifications document was motivated
by some ambiguities in that RFC which were noted as implementors were
attempting to implement some of the edge cases.  Implementations are
expected to pick up the changes in this document soon if they are not
otherwise implemented already.

This document does not impact backward compatibility.

: Personnel:
:
: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Jeffrey Haas, co-chair BFD.
Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana.

: (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
: the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
: publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
: IESG.

The shepherd was involved in the discussion of the feature, but not a
primary participant.  Editorial passes have been done for language and
technical content.

: (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
: breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The level of review is considered good.  Additionally, the document
shared its last call with the MPLS Working Group, which has an interest
in the fate of this document.

: (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
: broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
: DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
: place.

No.

: (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
: has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
: IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
: with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
: is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
: has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
: concerns here.

None.

: (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
: disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
: and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

: (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
: so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
: disclosures.

No additional IPR has been noted for this document.  Note that the base
RFC 5884 document does have IPR:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=5884&submit=rfc

: (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
: represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
: silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is solid consensus behind the document's contents.  The last call
unfortunately suffered from Working Group attention exhaustion and took
a bit of work to get this consensus validated.

: (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
: discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
: email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
: separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

: (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
: document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
: Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
: thorough.

No nits.

: (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
: criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None required.

: (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
: normative or informative?

All references are normative.

: (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
: advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
: references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All referenced documents are RFCs.

: (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
: If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
: the Last Call procedure.

No.

: (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
: RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
: abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
: in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
: the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
: is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
: the WG considers it unnecessary.

Yes.  This document updates RFC 5884 and is flagged appropriately.

: (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
: section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
: document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
: are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
: Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
: identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
: detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
: allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
: reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document properly asks nothing of IANA.

: (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
: allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
: in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

: (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
: Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
: language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.

2015-09-01
02 Jeffrey Haas Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2015-09-01
02 Jeffrey Haas IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2015-09-01
02 Jeffrey Haas IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-09-01
02 Jeffrey Haas IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-09-01
02 Jeffrey Haas Changed document writeup
2015-09-01
02 Jeffrey Haas Notification list changed to "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>
2015-09-01
02 Jeffrey Haas Document shepherd changed to Jeffrey Haas
2015-08-18
02 Jeffrey Haas IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2015-06-16
02 Vengada Prasad Govindan New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02.txt
2015-05-04
01 Jeffrey Haas Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-05-04
01 Jeffrey Haas IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2015-03-05
01 Vengada Prasad Govindan New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-01.txt
2015-01-15
00 Nobo Akiya This document now replaces draft-grmas-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications instead of None
2015-01-15
00 Vengada Prasad Govindan New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-00.txt