I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-05.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2008-05-30
IESG Telechat date: 2008-6-05
Summary: Almost ready, but LC comments still open
Comments:
These Last Call comments have not been addressed (see author's
response appended below). I was expecting a -06 version.
6. Session Establishment
A BFD session is boot-strapped using LSP-Ping. This specification
describes procedures only for BFD asynchronous mode.
Should you state explicitly that BFD Demand mode MUST NOT be used?
7. Encapsulation
...
The BFD control packet sent by the ingress LSR MUST be a UDP packet
with a well known destination port 3784 [BFD-IP] and a source port
assigned by the sender as per the procedures in [BFD-IP]. The source
IP address is a routable address of the sender. The destination IP
address is randomly chosen from the 127/8 range,
This is written in IPv4 terms. What happens in an IPv6-only environment?
There is no range of loopback addresses to borrow in IPv6, but you could
use a ULA prefix.
ID Nits finds a bunch of warnings:
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed
Standard
== It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
feeds but 12 pages
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the
current year
== Line 117 has weird spacing: '... may be assoc...'
== Line 334 has weird spacing: '...ence of the f...'
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Missing Reference: 'RFC2119' is mentioned on line 83, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'LSP-Ping' is mentioned on line 351, but not defined
== Unused Reference: 'RFC' is defined on line 381, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
draft-ietf-bfd-base-06
== Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-05
== Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of
draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-04
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv has been published as RFC 5085
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3036
(Obsoleted by RFC 5036)
== Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of
draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-05.txt
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rahul Aggarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: General Area Review Team <[email protected]>, Ross Callon <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the comments. Please see below prefixed by <RA>:
1. 6. Session Establishment
A BFD session is boot-strapped using LSP-Ping. This specification
describes procedures only for BFD asynchronous mode.
Should you state explicitly that BFD Demand mode MUST NOT be used?
<RA> I will spell out that BFD demand mode is out of scope.
7. Encapsulation
...
The BFD control packet sent by the ingress LSR MUST be a UDP packet
with a well known destination port 3784 [BFD-IP] and a source port
assigned by the sender as per the procedures in [BFD-IP]. The source
IP address is a routable address of the sender. The destination IP
address is randomly chosen from the 127/8 range,
This is written in IPv4 terms. What happens in an IPv6-only environment?
There is no range of loopback addresses to borrow in IPv6, but you could
use a ULA prefix.
<RA> The procedures of RFC 4379 need to be used which is
basically a destination IPv6 address from the range
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104. I will spell this out. Thanks for the catch.
Will fix the idnits.
Thanks,
rahul_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
