Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Has Issues I reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Security Area Directors. Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments. Document: draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-07 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2021-09-21 IETF LC End Date: 2021-09-28 IESG Telechat date: Unknown Summary: Has Issues Major Concerns: None Minor Concerns: General: All of the field names in this document use camel case, except one. I think the document would be easier to read if My Discriminator were to use the same convention. Also, HeadDiscriminator would be more descriptive. Section 2.1 says: The head MUST include the BFD Discriminator option in its Hello messages. This MUST statement cold me much more complete: The head MUST include the BFD Discriminator option in its Hello messages, and it MUST include a 4-byte My Discriminator with a value other than zero. Section 2.3: s/must set/MUST set/ Nits: Section 1, para 1 could be more clear and more forceful. I suggest: Faster convergence in the control plane minimizes the periods of traffic blackholing, transient routing loops, and other situations that may negatively affect service data flow. Faster convergence in the control plane is beneficial to unicast and multicast routing protocols. Section 1, para 2: s/DR is to act on behalf/DR acts on behalf/ Section 1, para 3: The first sentence is very unclear. I cannot offer an improvement because it is too hard to parse. Section 1, para 3: s/networks precisely/networks, and it precisely/ Section 1.1.1: s/familiarity/Familiarity/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
