Subject: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 19:05:08 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3:

This sentence is not clear. Which one of the following Options (1&2) do
you intend? I am guessing 2, but it may make sense to clarify in either
case.

Current:

   Once the above setup is complete, any network node, having the
   knowledge of the S-BFD discriminator allocated to by a remote node to
   remote entity/entities

Option 1:

   Once the above setup is complete, any network node, having the
   knowledge of the S-BFD discriminator allocated to it by a remote node
to
   remote entity/entities

Option 2:

   Once the above setup is complete, any network node, having the
   knowledge of the S-BFD discriminator allocated by a remote node to
   remote entity/entities

Section 7.2.1.  Responder Demultiplexing

The last step in section seems to be pointing to the initiator packet
transmission. Shouldn't this point to the responder procedures (Section
7.2.2) instead?

"Chosen reflector BFD session SHOULD transmit a response BFD control
packet using procedures described in Section 7.3.2."

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 02:38:38 +0000

Thanks for the review, Suresh! Please see inline.

> On May 4, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Yes, option 2.

> transmission. Shouldn't this point to the responder procedures (Section

Indeed. This should be 7.2.2 (somehow hardcoded in the xml source instead of a pointer).

We can fix these two.

Thanks,

— Carlos.