Greg, Thanks for the reply.
It might be too late to ask this question, I am curious if the head-end is aware of the list of end points, what is wrong if they just use unicast BFD to each of them? Multicast-BFD seems requires more support of the network, isn’t it? Linda From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:45 AM To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; IETF list <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail....@ietf.org Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-09 Hi Linda, thank you for the review and your kind words, much appreciated. If an end-point during the p2mp BFD session never responded to the head's multicast poll it is unknown to the head and cannot be reported as "inactive tail". I can imagine that if the head has been given the list of the tails, then the unresponsive end-point can be reported as "inactive tails". Regards, Greg On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com<mailto:linda.dun...@huawei.com>> wrote: Reviewer: Linda Dunbar Review result: Ready 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-?? Reviewer: Linda Dunbar Review Date: 2018-06-28 IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-18 IESG Telechat date: 2018-07-05 Summary: clear writing of the procedure. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: Are End points that not responding considered "Inactive Tails"? Does the HeadEnd report the "Inactive Tails"? Linda Dunbar
