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.