Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-14
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-14-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2026-08-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2026-08-07
Requested 2026-07-15
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors Greg Mirsky , Jeff Tantsura , Gyan Mishra
I-D last updated 2026-08-02 (Latest revision 2026-08-02)
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)
Opsdir Early review of -14 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Secdir Early review of -15 by Alexey Melnikov
Rtgdir Early review of -14 by Mike McBride (diff)
Comments
The draft has gone through major changes based on the comments received. Please review and see if the draft is ready for WGLC.
Assignment Reviewer Mike McBride
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/J1sWtMEkJqcnjlGWWYmQ6qYDXUE
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 15)
Result Has nits
Completed 2026-08-01
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-14-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2026-08-01-00
I have just a few minor comments for your consideration, otherwise good to go:

1. RFC 5883 is a normative reference but is only mentioned once in the
introduction as background context. Just checking that all references are
indeed normative, nothing informative.

2. Looks like secdir already gave their blessing on the security considerations
section but you may want to consider saying something like there are no
additional security considerations introduced by using p2mp BFD in the VRRP
context beyond those already covered in the referenced RFCs (if indeed that is
true).

3. For an applicability document, there's no discussion of how operators
configure or manage this. You do have this in the security section: "The
operation of either protocol is not changed." which may cover it. But including
something about BFD detection timers should be configured shorter than the
relevant VRRP failure detection interval may be helpful somewhere in the draft.
*edit* I'm just seeing an email on the list to discuss a new operational
considerations section. Good call. As long as this point is being made in there
you are golden.