I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-05.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2008-05-01 IETF LC End Date: 2008-05-07 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Almost ready, two clarifications requested Comments: <irony> Looking first at the BFD protocol spec to get some context, I find a 44 page document that claims "BFD is a simple hello protocol...". s/simple// perhaps? </irony> 6. Session Establishment A BFD session is boot-strapped using LSP-Ping. This specification describes procedures only for BFD asynchronous mode. Should you state explicitly that BFD Demand mode MUST NOT be used? 7. Encapsulation ... The BFD control packet sent by the ingress LSR MUST be a UDP packet with a well known destination port 3784 [BFD-IP] and a source port assigned by the sender as per the procedures in [BFD-IP]. The source IP address is a routable address of the sender. The destination IP address is randomly chosen from the 127/8 range, This is written in IPv4 terms. What happens in an IPv6-only environment? There is no range of loopback addresses to borrow in IPv6, but you could use a ULA prefix. ID Nits finds a bunch of warnings: Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 12 pages Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 117 has weird spacing: '... may be assoc...' == Line 334 has weird spacing: '...ence of the f...' Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC2119' is mentioned on line 83, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'LSP-Ping' is mentioned on line 351, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC' is defined on line 381, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-base-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-04 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv has been published as RFC 5085 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3036 (Obsoleted by RFC 5036) == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-02
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
