> On Mar 21, 2023, at 7:18 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ok -- then, why even mention multihop? The text should either
> indicate that the document only applies to single hop, or explain the
> security risks.
[...]
> The comparison then seems out of place and unnecessary.
>
>
> Note that these are non-blocking comments. I trust that you will do
> the right thing to avoid unnecessary confusion.
I don't think we're on the same page regarding "unnecessary confusion".
BFD features and profiles have different flavors of applicability. It's been
practice to mention items specifically to say "and this is out of scope".
Examples of this regularly include Echo and Demand modes. For this document,
multihop is out of scope, and explicitly mentioned so. This prevents the
"well, this looks like it could work for multihop" that will inevitably be
asked next round.
The same goes for S-BFD. "Why don't you use this instead?" Well, here's why.
Yes, these are non-blocking comments. The explanation is for the archive and
for the remainder of the IESG review process.
If you have specific suggestions that make this more clear _for you_, I'm sure
the authors would be happy to consider such edits.
-- Jeff
