RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-03
<thomas.morin@orange.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 09:44 UTC
Return-Path: <thomas.morin@orange.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A4B1AE0B6; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:44:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Glmz5tk98oT5; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365541AE0A7; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 583743B4236; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:43:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 2770D15805B; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:43:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cc7e:e40b:42ef:164e]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:43:55 +0100
From: thomas.morin@orange.com
To: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-03
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-03
Thread-Index: AQHO70MEYTO6iOJ7iEi+neAeVWl4UA==
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:43:55 +0000
Message-ID: <19505_1385977436_529C565C_19505_3941_1_529C55A2.7010802@orange.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <79643554AEEE1844A5F56107BD07E487@adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2013.11.30.60616
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:17:38 -0800
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags.all@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:44:01 -0000
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please seehttp://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-03 Reviewer: Thomas Morin Review Date: December 1st, 2013 IETF LC End Date: December 2nd, 2013 Intended Status: Proposed Standard Summary: The document is concise, well written, and raises no major issue. However, bringing clarifications to a few areas should be considered prior to publication. Major Issues: None. Minor Issues: - Mi.1) The document mentions the use of a specific UDP port for the micro-BFD sessions (6784). It should probably explain what is the behavior if BFD messages from a micro-BFD sessions are received on the normal BFD port (3784), and vice-versa what is the behavior for BFD messages from a non-BFD sessions is received on the micro-BFD UDP port. - Mi.2) The document indicates in section 2.2 that "The details of how [the destination IP address of the BFD peer] is learned are outside the scope of this document.". First, an example of a common practice would be great to provide an illustration. Second, I would find it worth documenting how this can be done in practice on an unnumbered link - Mi.3) The notion of "L3 continuity" is used in the introduction, but it is not explained what this means; it would deserve being explained as the idea of "continuity" may not be obvious to interpret in a contect where a single L3 hop is being tested. - Mi.4) Section 4 mentions "LMM" and "some Interface management module" without providing any definition nor explaining the role of such modules. - Mi.5) The behavior described in the Appendix looks very important for smooth activation of the feature in a real network and is actually specification text. I'm thus surprised to find it in an Appendix -- where it could be missed by implementors. I would suggest considering moving this text among the rest of technical specifications sections. ** Editorial comments: - Ed.1) I would suggest removing the mention of the use of a specific UDP port from the Abstract, which would then be more concise -- the motivation for using a specific UDP port so could be provided in section 2.2. - Ed.2) Section 2.3: "For the following BFD packets with Up state the MAC address from the received BFD packets for the session MAY be used instead of the dedicated MAC. " => "the _source_ MAC address from the received BFD packets" ? (adding "source" would remove any risk of ambiguous interpretation) - Ed.3) Section 5: "MAY remove the member link from the load balance table only that matches the address family of the failing BFD session" I had issues parsing this sentence; what about: "MAY remove the member link from only the load balance table that matches..." Furthermore, it would be nice to add a colon at the end of the sentence to indicate that what follows is an illustration of what precedes. Last, I think it would be worth indicating explicitly that "The member link MAY also be removed from both the L4 and L6 load balancing table". - Ed.4) I believe you need to update contact information for Nitin Bahadur. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
- RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-03 thomas.morin