Hi Santosh, authors,
The comments below are pretty minor. Please address them in next rev and we’ll
be good to go to next step for this document.
Regards,
Reshad,
From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
<rrahman=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 10:43 PM
To: Santosh P K <santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
<rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-stability-06.txt
Hi Santosh,
Thanks for addressing the comments.
General: NULL authentication TLV is still used, should be replaced with NULL
authentication type or section as appropriate.
Be consistent for Null v/s NULL (NULL Auth is used in
bfd-optimizing-authentication)
Introduction
s/detect lost packet/detect lost packets/
Section 3 Use Cases:
s/any BFD packet loss if loss/any BFD packet loss if the loss/
s/BFD implementation/BFD implementations/
Where the text says “failure of a link”, might be better to say “failure of a
datapath”?
Informative references to CFM and TWAMP would be useful
Section 4
“by appending the Null-Authentication type “. Suggest “by appending an
authentication section with the NULL Authentication type “
Section 5
“BFD uses authentication TLV”, suggest change to “BFD uses an authentication
section”.
“BFD packets MUST include NULL-Auth TLV”. Change to “BFD control packets MUST
include an authentication section with the NULL Authentication type”
Section 5.1
“The first BFD NULL-Auth type processed by the receiver…”. Change to “The
first BFD authentication section with the NULL Authentication type, in a valid
BFD control packet, processed by the receiver” .
Also, does it have to be NULL Auth, I believe it can be any auth with sequence
number? If that’s the case change to “The first BFD authentication section
with a non-zero sequence number, in a valid BFD control packet, processed by
the receiver is used for….”.
Regards,
Reshad.
From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Santosh P K
<santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 4:06 PM
To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-stability-06.txt
Hello All,
A new version of draft for BFD-stablity is here for review. Changes include
addressing shepherd comments as provided here.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/shepherdwriteup/.
Please also see attached diff.
Thanks
Santosh P K
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>>
Date: Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 4:41 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-stability-06.txt
To: Mach Chen <mach.c...@huawei.com<mailto:mach.c...@huawei.com>>, Ankur Saxena
<ankurpsax...@gmail.com<mailto:ankurpsax...@gmail.com>>, Peng Fan
<fan...@gmail.com<mailto:fan...@gmail.com>>, Mahesh Jethanandani
<mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>>, Ashesh Mishra
<mishra.ash...@gmail.com<mailto:mishra.ash...@gmail.com>>, Santosh Pallagatti
<santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com<mailto:santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>>
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bfd-stability-06.txt
has been successfully submitted by Santosh Pallagatti and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-bfd-stability
Revision: 06
Title: BFD Stability
Document date: 2020-07-13
Group: bfd
Pages: 6
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfd-stability-06.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-stability-06
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-stability
Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-stability-06
Abstract:
This document describes extensions to the Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) protocol to measure BFD stability. Specifically, it
describes a mechanism for detection of BFD packet loss.
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.
The IETF Secretariat
