Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-05-21
Requested 2018-05-07
Authors Dave Katz , David Ward , Santosh Pallagatti , Greg Mirsky
I-D last updated 2018-05-23
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -16 by Michael Richardson (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -16 by Bob Briscoe (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -16 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -18 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -18 by Bob Briscoe (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16-genart-lc-dupont-2018-05-23
Reviewed revision 16 (document currently at 19)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2018-05-23
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20180512
IETF LC End Date: 20180521
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready with nits

Major issues: None

Minor issues: Missing keyword section (aka RFC 2119 section).
BTW don't forget RFC8174 reference in this section...

Nits/editorial comments: 
 - 1 page 3: i.e. -> i.e.,

 - 4.4.1 page 5: example of MUST keyword use.

 - 4.6 pages 6 and 7 ("is" is in page 6, "binding" in page 7):
  "The minimum amount ... is binding to ..."
  this wording is ambiguous because binding can be both a noun and a verb.
  I suggest (for the first case) to add an article, e.g., "is the binding".

 - 7 page 17: e.g. -> e.g.,