Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04
review-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-05-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-05-03
Requested 2016-04-12
Authors Carlos Pignataro , David Ward , Nobo Akiya
I-D last updated 2016-05-04
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 Telechat review on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2016-05-04
review-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-05-04-00

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 treat these comments just like any other last call comments.



For more information, please see the FAQ at



<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

 >.



Document: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 2016/3/29

IETF LC End Date: 2016/4/12

IESG Telechat date: 2016/5/5



Summary: Ready with minor issues



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. A few minor issues are listed
below, it would be good to address
 them, but none is a show-stopper.



Major issues:



Minor issues:



1.



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?

2.



In the IANA considerations section – when this I-D is approved and becomes an
RFC, should not the Reference (REQUIRED) become this RFC – a more stable
reference that the draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip?



Nits/editorial comments: