This is fine with me, maybe this is worth explaining in text. Regards,
Dan On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 5:31 PM Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Thanks for the review. One response inline. > > On Friday, December 6, 2024 at 04:21:35 AM EST, Dan Romascanu via > Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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 > > <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > > Document: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-13 > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 2024-12-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2024-12-09 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > Ready with Issues > > This document extends the BFD functionality for checking connectivity > between > two systems with testing the capability of carrying a payloads of a > particular > size. It specifies how to implement such a mechanism using BFD in > Asynchronous > mode.It also includes YANG modules for managing this mechanism. > > This is a clear, well-written document. It is almost Ready with one minor > issue > (which may be just a clarification issue) and a couple of editorial nits. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > 1. Section 4.2 > > 'In the case multiple BFD clients desire to test the same BFD > endpoints using different bfd.PaddedPduSize parameters, > implementations SHOULD select the largest bfd.PaddedPduSize parameter > from the configured sessions. ' > > Why a SHOULD and not a MUST? > > <RR> This is because (for example) an implementation may decide to use a > smaller bfd.PaddedPduSize if the session is not coming up with the largest > bfd.PaddedPduSize (and then retry periodically with the largest value). > This is all implementation specific (and similar to what is done for BFD > timer values). > > Regards, > Reshad. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. Section 4.2 > > 'Since the consideration is path MTU, BFD sessions using this feature > only need to use a bfd.PaddedPduSize appropriate to exercise the path > MTU for the desired application. > > 2. I am not sure about Appendix A. If this is useful information, why not > include it in the body of the document. If not, eliminate it. > > This sentence seems to need some syntax clean-up. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org
