Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-07

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> 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/