Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt

["John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 4, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Interesting, my perception of the document was different.

Did you overlook this paragraph in the introduction, or did you see it but find it insufficiently clear?

   Throughout this document, we generally assume that the route server
   being discussed is able to represent different RIBs towards different
   clients, as discussed in section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC7947].  If this is
   not the case, the procedures described here to allow BFD to be
   automatically provisioned between clients still have value; however,
   the procedures for signaling reachability back to the route server
   may not.

There are some fairly obvious patches to the text you quoted, if that turns out to be the right way to improve clarity. For example (not necessarily final proposal):

> From section 4
> it is not clear to me that this behaviour is optional:
> 
>    "The RS uses the received ReachTell routes as input to the NHIB and
>    hence the route selection process it performs on behalf of the
>    client."

NEW:
   The RS uses the received ReachTell routes as input to the NHIB and
   hence the route selection process it performs on behalf of the
   client, assuming it performs one per section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC7947].

> and in section 4.4:
> 
>    "In computing its per-client Loc-RIB, the RS uses the content of the
>    related per-client NHIB as input to the route resolvability
>    condition (section 9.1.2.1 of [RFC4271]).  The next hop being
>    resolved is looked up in the NHIB and its state determined:"

NEW:
   In computing its per-client Loc-RIB, assuming it maintains one
   per section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC7947], the RS uses the content of the
   related per-client NHIB as input to the route resolvability
   condition (section 9.1.2.1 of [RFC4271]).  The next hop being
   resolved is looked up in the NHIB and its state determined:"

And probably there are other pieces that would need similar.

It would be nice to find a solution that makes the document clear and unambiguous without requiring little caveats all over the place, but if that's what it takes, fine. 

--John