Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16
review-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16-rtgdir-lc-richardson-2018-05-13-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 19) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-05-21 | |
Requested | 2018-05-07 | |
Requested by | Martin Vigoureux | |
Authors | Dave Katz , David Ward , Santosh Pallagatti , Greg Mirsky | |
I-D last updated | 2018-05-13 | |
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 | Michael Richardson |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 16 (document currently at 19) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2018-05-13 |
review-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16-rtgdir-lc-richardson-2018-05-13-00
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16.txt Reviewer: Michael Richardson Review Date: 2018-05-12 IETF LC End Date: unknown Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has presentation nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: It seems like a well written document, with an intelligent and well-throught out way to extend BFD to multicast uses. I found the document a bit too abstract as it attempted to apply itself to any place that BFD is used. I would like to perhaps better understand how it is used in some real multicast situations (MPLS, PIM/IP-level multicast). I believe that my lack of familiarity with some of those technologies might be keeping me in the dark. I'm not generally happy with documents that say: "The following procedure replaces section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880]." because it's difficult to know what is going on without having the two documents next to eachother. For an implementer, I'm not sure that there is any savings by doing this either, it seems to be solely for the convenience of those writing it. I would prefer to have section 4.13 actually number the steps of the pseudo-code. As far as I can see, all of the pseudo-code of 5880 is being replaced, so this is not as much as a patch, so I don't see why not to number the pseudo-code. (Like BASIC if you want, or with numbered lists) I did not evaluate the pseudo-code to determine if it made logical sense, it seemed well written and understandable. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Nits: "the tail declares the path to having failed." <- s/having/have/ -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-