Dan, Many thanks for this review!
You raise two good questions, here’s my take: I do not have a strong opinion one way or another — I will leave this one to the AD’s guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as updating RFC 5881 if that’s the preferred direction. Indeed — fixed in our working copy. Thanks again, — Carlos. > On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:40 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <droma...@avaya.com> wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the > IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> >. > > Document: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03 > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 2016/3/29 > IETF LC End Date: 2016/4/12 > IESG Telechat date: 2016/5/5 > > Summary: Ready with minor issues > > The document is well written and complete, but requires a good understanding > of BFD (RFC 5880, RFC 5881) and of the use-cases > (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case) document. A few minor issues are listed > below, it would be good to address them, but none is a show-stopper. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > 1. This document extends the usage of port 3785 adding the function of > being the destination port for the S-BFD echo packets. Should not this be > regarded as an update of RFC 5881 and mentioned as such on the front page? > 2. In the IANA considerations section – when this I-D is approved and > becomes an RFC, should not the Reference (REQUIRED) become this RFC – a more > stable reference that the draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip? > > Nits/editorial comments:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
