Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03

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

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
 a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at






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: