Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09
review-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-05-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-05-03
Requested 2016-04-12
Draft last updated 2016-05-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Shawn Emery (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-05-04
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2016-05-04

Review
review-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-05-04






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.




 




For more information, please see the FAQ at




 




< 


http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

 >.




 




Document: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-08




Reviewer: Dan Romascanu




Review Date: 2016/3/29




IETF LC End Date: 2016/4/12




IESG Telechat date: 2016/5/5




 




Summary: Ready with minor issues




 




The document is well written and complete, but requires a good understanding of BFD (RFC 5880) and of the use-cases (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case) document. A few minor issues are listed below, it would be good to address them, but
 none is a show-stopper. 




 




Major issues:




 




Minor issues:




 







1.

      


In the introduction I see the following:





 







Ø

 


   One key aspect of the mechanism described in this document eliminates


   the time between a network node wanting to perform a continuity test


   and completing the continuity test.  




 




I am wondering if this is really what is intended. If I understand correctly, S-BFD does not eliminate the continuity test but the set-up states transitions before the continuity test starts. Would not that
 rather be ‘… and starting the continuity test.’?




 







2.

      


In the last paragraph of Section 5:





 







Ø

 


Note that incoming S-BFD control packets may be IPv4, IPv6 or MPLS


   based.  




 




If these are the only three options I suggest that the text explicitly specify this. If other options are possible or may be possible in the future I suggest that the text also clarifies this




 




Nits/editorial comments:




 




1.

      


Second paragraph in Section 3: s/allocated toby a remote node/allocated to by a remote node/