Re: Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,
at the BFD WG meeting in Montreal, we've agreed to remove the "Updates ..."
reference from the front page of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail as
the number of cross-references between the two documents is sufficient. The
new working version attached. Greatly appreciate your consideration and
comments.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ben,
> thank you for the review and your comments. Please find my answers in-line
> tagged GIM>>.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-09: Discuss
>>
>> 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-bfd-multipoint-active-tail/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This is a process discuss:
>>
>> If I read things correctly, this draft purports to update an
>> _unpublished_ RFC
>> (i.e., another draft.). If so, can't we just correct that draft before
>> publishing it?
>>
> GIM>> In the Introduction we've stated:
>    This application of BFD is an extension to Multipoint BFD
>    [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint].
> I believe that the only way to avoid that is to merge the two
> specifications.
>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Assuming this progresses mostly as-is, please mention the update in the
>> abstract, and put a sentence or two in the introduction to give a high
>> level
>> summary of what the update actually is.
>>
> GIM>> Please consider the following updates:
> Abstract
> NEW TEXT:
>     This document updates draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint.
>
> Introduction
> OLD TEXT:
>    This application of BFD is an extension to Multipoint BFD
>    [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], which allows tails to notify the head of
>    the lack of multipoint connectivity.  As a further option, heads can
>    request a notification from the tails by means of a polling
>    mechanism.  Notification to the head can be enabled for all tails, or
>    for only a subset of the tails.
> NEW TEXT:
>    This application of BFD is an extension to Multipoint BFD
>    [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], which allows tails to notify the head of
>    the lack of multipoint connectivity.  As a further option, heads can
>    request a notification from the tails by means of a polling
>    mechanism.  Notification to the head can be enabled for all tails, or
>    for only a subset of the tails.  In order to achieve that, among
>    several updates to [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], the new state variables
>    and new values for existing variables has been added.
>
> Hope these address your comments.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>