Ballot for draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
The BFD WG has come to consensus on the path forward resulting in the requirement to know about discriminators assigned, and not explicit mapping to individual functions. The base S-BFD document (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base) has been updated appropriately. I'm clearing my DISCUSS.
Thanks for writing this clear document. I do agree with Alvaro's issue, however.
Please expand S-BFD, both in the abstract and the body. (I see an expansion of BFD in the body, but not one for S-BFD)
As mentioned by Menachem in his OPS DIR review: NITS ==== The NITS Tool founds the following warnings: == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-04 ----------------------------------------- In addition the following sentence may need clarification: "When multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised how a given discriminator is mapped to a specific use case is out of scope for this document." It was not clear to me whether this is defined or will be defined in a different document or whether this is left open for each implementation.
Nevil Brownlee performed the opsdir review.