Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-01-14
Requested 2021-12-06
Requested by John Scudder
Authors Enke Chen , Naiming Shen , Robert Raszuk , Reshad Rahman
I-D last updated 2022-01-14
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -01 by Martin Björklund (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -11 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Derek Atkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Henning Rogge
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-09-rtgdir-lc-rogge-2022-01-14
Posted at
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 16)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-01-14

the RTGdir has asked me to do a review on draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-09 and I
think its ready for publication.

The concept of passively listening instances reacting on demand should simplify
deployment of BDF, especially when switching between active and passive role
can be done automatically decided on local demand. As far as I could see from
RFC 5880 BDF signals its state (active or passive), so it cannot accidentally
have two passive sides just reacting to each other (thinking the other as

I have two nits with the document...

1st, I would like a clarification which/how many (all?) security measurements
you consider mandatory... if you (as an example) run the protocol in a trusted
environment, you might be able to skip authentication... but maybe using the
TTL to keep the protocol "linklocal" should still be mandatory.

2nd, I would suggest writing out the full name "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD)" once in the abstract just to make sure nobody confuses the

Henning Rogge