Hi Carlos, 1. Yes. Section 5 rather than Seciton 4 is relevant. The last paragraph of the Intro will be updated to reflect this. 2. OK. The text will be updated. Thanks, Mingui ________________________________________ From: Carlos Pignataro [cpignata@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 3:20 To: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; trill@xxxxxxxx Subject: Review of draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-04 Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro Review result: Has Nits Hi, This is a short yet well written document. Looks really good. Just a couple of small questions/comments: 1. It's not clear exactly what from RFC 7175 is being updated by Section 4. This is based on the last paragraph of the Intro, yet Section 5 also seems relevant to that update. 2. In the IANA COnsiderations, it would be useful to explicitly list that the "RBridge Channel Protocols" registry is part of the "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters" Thanks, Carlos Pignataro.