Subject: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 19:50:06 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18: 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-multipoint/

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

The text in §5.1 says that MultipointHead sessions send packets with the M bit
set. It probably bears mention that this is an explicit update to the RFC 5880
requirement that "It MUST be zero on both transmit and receipt."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nit (from id-nits):

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5880, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§4:

>  If no
>  BFD Control packets are received by a tail for a detection time, the
>  tail declares the path to having failed.

Nit: "...to have failed."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5.6:

>  A session of type MultipointHead is created for each multipoint path
>  over which the head wishes to run BFD.  This session runs in the
>  Active role , per section 6.1 [RFC5880].  Except when

Nit: extra space before comma

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 16:20:40 -0700

Hi Adam,
thank you for the review and helpful comments. Please find my answers
in-line tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint/
GIM>> Added to Abstract:
    This document updates RFC 5880.

GIM>> Would this be acceptable:
 If no BFD Control packets are received by a tail for a detection time, the
tail declares that the path has failed.

GIM>> Thank you. Done.