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: