Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-08
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-08-rtgdir-early-baccelli-2024-03-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-06
Requested revision 06 (document currently at 11)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2024-03-13
Requested 2024-02-26
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors Greg Mirsky , Jeff Tantsura , Gyan Mishra
I-D last updated 2024-03-12
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -06 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -08 by Emmanuel Baccelli (diff)
Secdir Early review of -08 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Comments 
We'd like to request early reviews of this document before initiating a WGLC.
Please note that this draft has a dependency on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/, which is now in RFC editor queue.

Thanks,
Yingzhen
Assignment Reviewer Emmanuel Baccelli
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/czNc5Ryibco0JYl2D0SBsV-zg5Y
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 11)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-03-12
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-08-rtgdir-early-baccelli-2024-03-12-00
Hello,

I've been selected as Routing Directorate (early) reviewer for this draft.

I have a few nits (nothing major) and a couple of suggestions.

Some of my comments might come through as pedantic -- mostly due to my
superficial prior knowledge concerning VRRP!

# Abstract:

suggested change/clarification
"...sub-second convergence of the Active router and..."
=> "...sub-second convergence for the process determining the Active router
and..." or something equivalent.

# Section 1:

suggested change/clarification
"this document demonstrates how... can enable faster detection..."
=> "this document specifies fast transition to a new Active router, upon
detection of..." or something equivalent.

# Section 2:

"Supporting sub-second mode... in the data plane may prove challenging"
=> Would be best to hint at the main reason why (costs in terms of control
traffic overhead?).

"BFD already has many implementationq based on HW"
=> Cite at least one implementation, if possible?

# Section 3:

My Discriminator => cite RFC5880 upon first use of this term in the doc ;)

"... starts transmitting BFD control packets with VRID as a source IP address
and ..." => it is unclear how VRID (1 Byte) can be used as IP address. Can you
rephrase/clarify?

"... when a backup router detects failure of the Active router, ..."
=> using which mechanism/RFC ? I suggest citing it explicitly

"... it reevaluates its role as VRID."
=> it is unclear how this happens exactly. If this is intentionally left
unspecified as implementation-dependent, I suggest to say it explicitly in the
doc.

"... the new Active router MUST select My Discriminator and..."
=> it is unclear which discriminator is meant here. Do you mean the value
locally allocated (as it was still Backup router)?

# Section 5:

"... to accelerate detecting a failure that affects VRRP"
=> it is unclear what in the doc accelerates *detecting* a failure. I suggest a
rephrase such as "...to accelerate transition to a new Active router upon
detection of BFD failure" or something equivalent.