Hi Greg, Thank you for your suggestions.
> It seems that referencing the multi-hop BFD [RFC5883] in the Introduction > section as the existing mechanism detecting the node liveness can make the > document more thorough. While I have no objection to being thorough, being that thorough would require a discussion of each of the alternatives, which seems like overkill at this point. > along with the term "node liveness," the document mentions "node's > reachability". Do you think that the latter might be further clarified by > pointing out that that is reachability from an IGP perspective? Or, perhaps > use only the "node liveness" in the document. Reachability is a well-understood graph theoretic term. I realize that some people still don’t understand it, but I’m not going to spend everyone’s valuable time reproducing Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reachability <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reachability>). I specifically used “node liveness” to emphasize that this is NOT dealing with “service liveness”. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
