Hi Ben,
thank you for your review and helpful comments. I propose the following
updates:
Abstract
NEW TEXT:
   This document updates RFC 5880.

Introduction
OLD TEXT:
   The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection protocol [RFC5880] specifies a
   method for verifying unicast connectivity between a pair of systems.
   This document defines a method for using BFD to provide verification
   of multipoint or multicast connectivity between a multipoint sender
   (the "head") and a set of one or more multipoint receivers (the
   "tails").
NEW TEXT:
   The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection protocol [RFC5880] specifies a
   method for verifying unicast connectivity between a pair of systems.
   This document updates [RFC5880] by defining a new method for using
   BFD.  This new method provides verification of multipoint or
   multicast connectivity between a multipoint sender (the "head") and a
   set of one or more multipoint receivers (the "tails").

Hope these updates address your comments.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please mention the fact this updates 5880 in the abstract. Also, in the
> introduction where you do mention the update, please add a sentence or two
> that
> give a satellite view summary of what the update actually is.
>
>
>

Reply via email to