Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03
review-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03-genart-lc-romascanu-2016-03-29-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2016-04-12 | |
Requested | 2016-03-24 | |
Authors | Carlos Pignataro , David Ward , Nobo Akiya | |
I-D last updated | 2016-03-29 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03
by Dan Romascanu
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Dan Romascanu (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Ron Bonica (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dan Romascanu |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 06) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2016-03-29 |
review-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03-genart-lc-romascanu-2016-03-29-00
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq >. Document: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-0 4 Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 2016/5/4 IETF LC End Date: 2016/4/12 IESG Telechat date: 2016/5/5 Summary: Ready with one issue The document is well written and complete, but requires a good understanding of BFD (RFC 5880, RFC 5881) and of the use-cases (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case) document. In my initial review I raised two issues. One was accepted and an editorial change was made in draft-04. The second one was: - This document extends the usage of port 3785 adding the function of being the destination port for the S-BFD echo packets. Should not this be regarded as an update of RFC 5881 and mentioned as such on the front page? The authors answered the following: - I do not have a strong opinion one way or another — I will leave this one to the AD’s guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as updating RFC 5881 if that’s the preferred direction No change was made. I would like to make sure that the responsible AD has seen this comment. It’s not a show-stopper, but I still believe that marking this document as an update to RFC 5881 is better. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: