Aijun,
> On Apr 4, 2023, at 5:28 AM, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > From the description of this document, the state machine of local device is > conformed that described in RFC5880, the main standard parts of this > document are the contents of related fields within the BFD ECHO Packet. If > so, I suggested to point out these fields and its value in more explicit > manner, to facilitate the implementation interoperability. Perversely, the fact that this mechanism has an implementation "talking to itself" means the interoperability considerations are not a primary issue. Providing additional detail to help illustrate the mechanism would be in-scope and perhaps helpful. Did you have any explicit recommendations for the text? > Should the section 2(update to RFC5880) be moved afterwards the section > 3(Unaffiliated BFD Echo Procedures)? > And I am worrying that is it easy for the reader/implementer to keep up with > the updated contents in current manner, because they must compare the two > documents simultaneously? I agree that this would be a helpful change. It would move the procedure ahead of the changes that impact the BFD normative text. > > Is there any other better style to point out the update to RFC5880? Unfortunately, this is a common problem for internet-drafts that impact protocol state machinery. We have either the option of trying to issue a "patch" on the draft, as we're doing here, or do a -bis of the base RFC to more cleanly integrate the changes. Since I think this feature is best documented as an optional extension at this time, the "patch" format is our best option. -- Jeff
