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

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
Authors Carlos Pignataro, David Ward, Nobo Akiya
Draft 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
Review review-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03-genart-lc-romascanu-2016-03-29
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review 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 posting
 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: