Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-06
review-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-06-rtgdir-lc-halpern-2024-02-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2024-03-11
Requested 2024-02-21
Requested by Nicolai Leymann
Authors Greg Mirsky , Gyan Mishra , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
I-D last updated 2024-02-22
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/za4NU886m12RRMXBaIFm_NiGdkM
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready
Completed 2024-02-22
review-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-06-rtgdir-lc-halpern-2024-02-22-00
Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-name-version
Reviewer: your-name
Review Date: date
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: copy-from-I-D

Summary:  This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
    I do have one question that I would appreciate being considered.

Comments:
    The document is clear and readable, with careful references for those
    needing additional details.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues:
    I note that the security considerations (section 6) does refer to
    congestion issues caused by excessive transmission of BFD requests.   I
    wonder if section 5 ("Operation of Multipoint BFD with Active Tail over
    P2MP MPLS LSP") should include a discussion of the congestion implications
    of multiple tails sending notifications at the rate of 1 per second to the
    head end, particularly if the failure is near the head end.  While I
    suspect that the 1 / second rate is low enough for this to be safe,
    discussion in the document would be helpful.