Hi Adam,
thank you for the review and helpful comments. Please find my answers
in-line tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote:

> Adam Roach 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The text in §5.1 says that MultipointHead sessions send packets with the M
> bit
> set. It probably bears mention that this is an explicit update to the RFC
> 5880
> requirement that "It MUST be zero on both transmit and receipt."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> Nit (from id-nits):
>
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5880, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
>
GIM>> Added to Abstract:
    This document updates RFC 5880.

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> §4:
>
> >  If no
> >  BFD Control packets are received by a tail for a detection time, the
> >  tail declares the path to having failed.
>
> Nit: "...to have failed."
>
GIM>> Would this be acceptable:
 If no BFD Control packets are received by a tail for a detection time, the
tail declares that the path has failed.

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> §5.6:
>
> >  A session of type MultipointHead is created for each multipoint path
> >  over which the head wishes to run BFD.  This session runs in the
> >  Active role , per section 6.1 [RFC5880].  Except when
>
> Nit: extra space before comma
>
GIM>> Thank you. Done.

Reply via email to