Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Stewart Bryant) Yes
Comment (2011-07-11 for -)
Please ask the RFC editor to align the state diagrams on to single pages in final layout.
(Adrian Farrel) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
(David Harrington) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Pete Resnick) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
Comment (2011-07-14 for -)
Joel Jaeggli made a number of editorial suggestions in his OPS-DIR review. I suggest that these are taken into consideration: 2.1 I would add continuity check to the glossary since cv is in there (both are also defined elsewhere) 3.5 says: The base spec is unclear on aspects of how a MEP with a BFD transmit rate set to zero behaves. One interpretation is that no periodic messages on the reverse component of the bi-directional LSP originate with that MEP, it will only originate messages on a state change. I would prefer think that by suggesting this the doucment would simply state thst this is the interpretation that SHOULD be used. it should probably also site teh mpls tp base spec. 3.7.7. Discriminator values In the BFD control packet the discriminator values have either local to the sink MEP or no significance (when not known). My Discriminator field MUST be set to a nonzero value (it can be a fixed value), the transmitted your discriminator value MUST reflect back the received value of My discriminator field or be set to 0 if that value is not known. Your Discriminator show always be capatalized given that it's the name of the field. likewise: Per RFC5884 Section 7 , a node MUST NOT change the value of the "my discriminator" field for an established BFD session. My Discriminator should also be capitalized, I would also be consistent about the use of quotes either use them or not. probably I would just be consistent with rfc 5884
(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection
(Robert Sparks) No Objection
(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection
Hoping you'll take a look at these during AUTH48. 1) Both the secdir reviewer and I tripped over the use of integrity in the abstract: Abstract: "integrity of the continuity" seems redundant. Just "continuity" is better. Abstract: "any loss of continuity defect". So you lost a "continuity defect", did you? Slipper little guys, aren't they? Maybe you mean "any loss-of-continuity defect". #2) Expand OAM on first use. #3) Introduction: Double references: "" and "". #4) Introduction: Missing commas: "the same continuity check (CC) proactive continuity verification (CV) and remote defect indication (RDI) capabilities" should be "the same continuity check (CC), proactive continuity verification (CV), and remote defect indication (RDI) capabilities". #5) Section 2.1: Please include entries for P/F, MPLS, OAM, and PDU. #6) Section 126.96.36.199: Are the figure #s correct? #7) Section 4: There should be a blank line before the title. #8) Figure 4, Figure 6: There should be a blank line after the Figure label. #9) Section 4, Section 6: No blank line before Section header. #10) Section 4: Ends with a list of length 1. List constructs should not be used for lists of length one. #11) Section 6: There should be a blank line before the title.