Hi Alia, Your review is much appreciated.
We’ve made the draft-ietf-trill-resilient-trees-08 to be a informative reference. The suggested improvement is sensible. The draft has been updated accordingly. The 07 version has been uploaded. Thanks! Mingui From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 5:47 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-06 As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-06. I would first like to thank the authors - Mingui, Santosh, and Vengada - as well as the WG for their work on this document. My primary concern is that this document currently has a normative dependency on draft-ietf-trill-resilient-trees-08. I do not understand why. I can certainly see it being useful as an informative reference for how p2mp BFD might be useful in a TRILL network - but I don't see a need to understand or implement that draft to support this technology. Text in this draft (e.g. "If the head is keeping track of some or all of the tails [I-D.ietf-trill-resilient-trees], it has a session of type MultipointClient per tail that it cares about [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail].") could use improvement - such as "An example use is when a multicast tree root needs to keep track of all the receivers as in [I-D.ietf-trill-resilient-trees]; this can be done by maintaining a session of type MultipointClient per receiver that is of interest, as described in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail]." I am going to request IETF Last Call for this draft - with it being extra long due to the holidays - and expect an update from the authors. Regards, Alia
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
