Advertising Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Discriminators in IS-IS
RFC 7883

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2015-11-19)
No email
send info
Thanks for writing this clear document. I do agree with Alvaro's issue, however.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

Alvaro Retana (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2016-03-24)
No email
send info
The BFD WG has come to consensus on the path forward resulting in the requirement to know about discriminators assigned, and not explicit mapping to individual functions.  The base S-BFD document (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base) has been updated appropriately.

I'm clearing my DISCUSS.

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-11-17)
No email
send info
Please expand S-BFD, both in the abstract and the body. (I see an expansion of BFD in the body, but not one for S-BFD)

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2015-11-18)
No email
send info
As mentioned by Menachem in his OPS DIR review:
NITS
====

The NITS Tool founds the following warnings:

 == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
     first submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  The disclaimer is usually
     necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that
     take significant amounts of text from those RFCs.  If you can contact all
     authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78
     rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. 
     Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. 
     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)


 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
     draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-04


-----------------------------------------

In addition the following sentence may need clarification: 

"When multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised how a given discriminator is mapped to a specific use case is out of scope for this document."

It was not clear to me whether this is defined or will be defined in a different document or whether this is left open for each implementation.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2015-11-18)
No email
send info
Nevil Brownlee performed the opsdir review.

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection