Generic Application of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
RFC 5882

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-03-05)
No email
send info
As I read this document, I realized that it covers extremely well the
aspects for applying it to routing protocols and routing-protocol -like
situations. However, upon reading the title, abstract, and introduction
I had actually expected more information about WHEN BFD can be applied
and in particular when it cannot. I also expected better coverage of
what the issues are in applying it across different types of 
environments, e.g., multipath, on-link, networks that employ
various types of filtering, etc.

A few cases in point: is BFD applicable over paths and not just links,
and under what conditions? What are the congestion avoidance 
implications? (Word "congestion" does not appear in the document set,
btw.) Using BFD as a means to detect
liveness of connectivity to a number of peers across the Internet may
not be wise, if it causes constant packet flows to all of them unless
you specify what kind of parameters would be suitable (e.g., infrequent
messaging would still be OK).

Update: Generic: I did not see very much changes relating to my Discuss. I believe at least the applicability of Echo mode should be discussed, maybe other things too. This is not too hard to do (and we already agree on the technical content, like the fact that Echo mode cannot be performed over situations like the multihop), can you suggest text?

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2008-06-04 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 10:
>    Comments on this draft should be directed to rtg-bfd@ietf.org.

  Remove this sentence.

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

Comment (2008-06-05 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Sandy Murphy's SecDir review identified a number of places
that would benefit from some clarification/editorial changes;
these should be fixed during AUTH48 (if not earlier).

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2008-06-05 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  The title page header should indicate that the intended status for
  this document: Proposed Standard.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(David Ward) Recuse