[bess] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- This document should expand acronyms on first use, particularly those in the
Abstract.

- Similarly, a couple of new paragraphs in Section 1 would be a useful boot
camp for concepts like PEs, P-Multicast, C-Multicast, BFD, RT, etc. I spent
some time in RFC 6513 and I'm still pretty unclear on these.

- The last paragraph of S1 describes "protection for multicast services". Can
you elaborate what this is protection from? The latency associated with tunnel
failure?

- In Section 3.1.6, please clarify if the length field of the TLV must be a
multiple of 4 octets, or the entire TLV (including type and length) should be a
multiple of 4. From context, I suspect the latter is true, but it could easily
be misread otherwise.

- Sec 5. I think you should delete the word "whether"