Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18: 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-bfd-multipoint/



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

Firstly, thank you for writing this - I've never needed this functionality, but
can see where it would be useful.

I fully support Mirja's DISCUSS - there should to be more text not just around
congesting links, but also not shooting yourself in the foot with too many /
too frequent packets. Ben's DISCUSS is also needs to be addressed.

Comments:
1: "All other information MAY be determined dynamically."
I don't think that a 2119-style MAY works here - I'd suggest "All other
information can be determined dynamically." (or even just a lowercase may)

2: Section 5.7:
"Bootstrapping BFD session to multipoint MPLS LSP in case of penultimate hop
popping may use control plane, e.g., as described in
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover], and is outside the scope of this document."
"may use control plane" doesn't parse for me. Perhaps "may use *the* control
plane"? I'm actually not sure what you are trying to say here, so that might
not fix it.

I also have some nits:
Section 1:
O:  Term "connectivity" in this document
P: The  term "connectivity" in this document