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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-06-03 IESG Telechat date: 05 June 2008 Summary: Almost ready Comments: my concerns are editorial but as one is about the structure of the document I can't assume you can leave them to the RFC Editor: - 3.2 page 3: Signalling -> Signaling - 3.2: BFD's -> BFD (which is not a person) - 3.3: which must exist -> which should exist (as there are cases where unidirectional links without a return path are useful (and used), even the document doesn't apply in these cases) - 5 page 4: I have a concern about this section: IMHO it should be the Security Considerations. This should solve a second concern about the "empty" Security Considerations when there is at least something about security. - Normative Refs page 5: don't forget you may provide Informational References. For instance IMHO OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and perhaps also BFD-MPLS should be only informative. - page 5: usually Security and IANA Considerations are sections and are before References. - Boiler plate page 7: Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment (if you know where your boiler plate comes from, please warn its author) To understand the document I read some other BFD I-Ds so I have a concer about draft-ietf-bfd-base-08.txt: IMHO it is not a good idea to standardize today a MD5-based authentication. I suggest to switch to SHA1 (I assume it should be kept for compatibility with current deployed implementations) and a SHA2 (SHA224 or SHA256) -based one. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
