Hi Tim,
Thanks for your review and comments.
Please see inline.OriginalFrom: TimWicinskiviaDatatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>To: int-dir@xxxxxxxx <int-dir@xxxxxxxx>;Cc: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo.all@xxxxxxxx>;last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>;rtg-bfd@xxxxxxxx <rtg-bfd@xxxxxxxx>;Date: 2024年10月06日 05:39Subject: Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-11Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.
Document: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo
Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
Review Date: 2024-10-05
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary: My issues are more editorial in nature.
After reading the document and making some notes, I read Adrian Farrel RTDIR
review, and found them quite useful. Section 2 does need some text before it
introduces the diagram. Adri
[XM]>>> OK. I've responded to Adrian with my suggested text, waiting for him to confirm.
I also was thinking "5880 should have a diagram this builds on", but the state
machine in 6.2 of 5880 is more expressive. Since AdminDown is not used in
Unaffiliated BFD Echo, and this is probably overkill, an update state machine
w/out AdminDown?
[XM]>>> I agree the state machine in 6.2 of 5880 is more expressive, so I suggest NOT to update that diagram of 5880.
## Minor Issues - nits, etc
### S2
s/ Echo packets is outside/Echo packets are outside/
[XM]>>> Considering the subject of this sentence is *The method*, I suggest to remain it as is.
Detect Mult number of Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets have not arrived
I believe "Detect Mult" should be quoted like it is elsewhere
[XM]>>> Make sense. Will make this change in the next revision.
While 5880 does not quote terms like "Required Min Echo RX Interval" and
"Required Min RX Interval", this document does *sometimes*. I sorta feel this
may be a question for the RFC Editor, but I noticed the inconsistency in spots,
and assume others will also.
[XM]>>> In Section 2, I'll make sure all terms are quoted. However in Section 3, the terms wouldn't be quoted, because the title of this section is "Updates to RFC 5880" and as you observed RFC 5880 doesn't quote terms.
### 6.8.9
When a system is using the Echo function with either Asynchronous
or Demand mode, BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be transmitted when
bfd.SessionState is not Up, and BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be
transmitted unless the last BFD Control packet received from the
remote system contains a nonzero value in Required Min Echo RX
Interval.
Can this run on sentence be broken up like in the Old Text?
s/Up, and BFD Echo packets /Up. Also, BFD Echo packets/
[XM]>>> The reason why this sentence is not broken up is that the precondition (i.e., When a system is using the Echo function with either Asynchronous or Demand mode) is important for the latter part (i.e., and BFD Echo packets MUST NOT...) of this sentence.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
