Thanks Xiao I am good with this
On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 3:25 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tim, > > > Thanks for your review and comments. > Please see inline. > Original > *From: *TimWicinskiviaDatatracker <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]>; > *Cc: *[email protected] < > [email protected]>;[email protected] < > [email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; > *Date: *2024年10月06日 05:39 > *Subject: **Intdir last call review of > draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-11* > Reviewer: Tim Wicinski > Review result: Ready with Nits > > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for > draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo. > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area > > Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just > like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve > > them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more > details on the INT Directorate, see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>. > > Document: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo > Reviewer: Tim Wicinski > Review Date: 2024-10-05 > Intended Status: Standards Track > > Summary: My issues are more editorial in nature. > > > After reading the document and making some notes, I read Adrian Farrel RTDIR > > review, and found them quite useful. Section 2 does need some text before it > introduces the diagram. Adri > > [XM]>>> OK. I've responded to Adrian with my suggested text, waiting for > him to confirm. > > > > I also was thinking "5880 should have a diagram this builds on", but the state > machine in 6.2 of 5880 is more expressive. Since AdminDown is not used in > > Unaffiliated BFD Echo, and this is probably overkill, an update state machine > w/out AdminDown? > > [XM]>>> I agree the state machine in 6.2 of 5880 is more expressive, so I > suggest NOT to update that diagram of 5880. > > > ## Minor Issues - nits, etc > > ### S2 > > s/ Echo packets is outside/Echo packets are outside/ > > [XM]>>> Considering the subject of this sentence is *The method*, I > suggest to remain it as is. > > > > Detect Mult number of Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets have not > arrived > > I believe "Detect Mult" should be quoted like it is elsewhere > > [XM]>>> Make sense. Will make this change in the next revision. > > > While 5880 does not quote terms like "Required Min Echo RX Interval" and > > "Required Min RX Interval", this document does *sometimes*. I sorta feel this > > may be a question for the RFC Editor, but I noticed the inconsistency in > spots, > and assume others will also. > > [XM]>>> In Section 2, I'll make sure all terms are quoted. However in > Section 3, the terms wouldn't be quoted, because the title of this section > is "Updates to RFC 5880" and as you observed RFC 5880 doesn't quote terms. > > > ### 6.8.9 > > When a system is using the Echo function with either Asynchronous > or Demand mode, BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be transmitted when > bfd.SessionState is not Up, and BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be > transmitted unless the last BFD Control packet received from the > remote system contains a nonzero value in Required Min Echo RX > Interval. > > Can this run on sentence be broken up like in the Old Text? > > s/Up, and BFD Echo packets /Up. Also, BFD Echo packets/ > > [XM]>>> The reason why this sentence is not broken up is that the > precondition (i.e., When a system is using the Echo function with either > Asynchronous or Demand mode) is important for the latter part (i.e., > and BFD Echo packets MUST NOT...) of this sentence. > > > Best Regards, > > Xiao Min > > >
