On Jul 30, 2015, at 22:04, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 06:30:03PM +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: What is the target timeline for submitting these to the IESG? Likely the next day or so. Thank you, Jeff! True to my general nature, my days follow the timelines that many software developers mean when they say "just a few days". In other words, the caveat is, "when I can work on that without interruption". Such a precious illusion. With apologies to the Working Group, I've completed the document shepherd writeup for the S-BFD document set and have submitted the drafts for IESG publication. One minor issue was noted during the writeup - that being the normative reference on a spring document that still hasn't been accepted as a working group document in spring. Based on how this use case is being used to support a particular use case in Seamless BFD, a normative reference is appropriate. However, since both documents are targeted for Informational status, an Informative reference may be similarly appropriate. I agree that an Informative reference is appropriate in this case, although either Normative or Informative can easily be argued. The authors of Seamless BFD should consider whether a change in status may be appropriate as it would remove an obstacle to publication as an RFC. My preference would be to move this reference to Informative. Also, in scanning through the draft, I noticed a set of additional minor issues: "2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-02#section-2>. Introduction to Seamless BFD BFD, as defined in standard [RFC5880<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5880>], requires two network nodes, to exchange locally allocated discriminators. The discriminator enables identification of the sender and receiver of BFD packets of the particular session and proactive continuity monitoring of the forwarding path between the two. [RFC5881<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5881>] defines single hop BFD whereas [RFC5883<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5883>] and [RFC5884<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5884>] defines multi-hop BFD." In the text above, I see the following issues: 1. BFD is not a "standard", it's PS. I'd just remove "standard". 2. RFC 5884 does not define multi hop (5883 does), it defines BFD for MPLS LSPs 3. RFC 5885 (BFD for PWs) is missing. Thanks, Carlos. -- Jeff
