Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > - In multiple places it talks about "strict-mode is enabled on the > link" or similar. It is unclear from the context where this > enabling is happening, and I'd be tempted to add a bit more > operational context such as "strict-mode is enabled by the > operator..." or similar. > > KT> It is understood that it is the operator that is enabling BFD or BFD strict > mode. We can clarify this in a couple of places like the introduction and the > procedures sections. I don't think it would help much to insert "operator" at > every sentence in the document which discusses enablement. I hope that would > address your comment. Yes, if it's well mentioned somewhere then it doesn't need to be everywhere, I agree. > - In the state discussions the phrase "or higher" is used to indicate > multiple states. The original OSPF RFC generally uses different > terminology: "or greater". It might be wise to switch to the > original terminology instead. > > KT> RFC2328 uses the word "higher" in describing the Init state in section 10.1 > but then uses "greater" in the other state descriptions. We will keep the word > "higher" in the update Init state, but perhaps change to "greater" in another > place where we reference 2-way. in the document. I'll leave it to you to decide where the right place to make terminology swaps are of course. -- Wes Hardaker My Pictures: http://photos.capturedonearth.com/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
