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 rev. 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
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of -04 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Dan Romascanu
Review review-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03-genart-lc-romascanu-2016-03-29
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg13232.html
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Issues
Draft last updated 2016-03-29
Review completed: 2016-03-29

Review
review-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03-genart-lc-romascanu-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 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: