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 rev. 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
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 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-04-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-05-04
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg13107.html
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Issues
Draft last updated 2016-05-04
Review completed: 2016-05-04

Review
review-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-05-04






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: