[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-08
Emmanuel Baccelli via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 12 March 2024 14:46 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014A9C15154F; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Emmanuel Baccelli via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd.all@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.7.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171025478699.63593.16128498870865949381@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:46:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/czNc5Ryibco0JYl2D0SBsV-zg5Y>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd-08
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:46:27 -0000
Reviewer: Emmanuel Baccelli Review result: Has Nits Hello, I've been selected as Routing Directorate (early) reviewer for this draft. I have a few nits (nothing major) and a couple of suggestions. Some of my comments might come through as pedantic -- mostly due to my superficial prior knowledge concerning VRRP! # Abstract: suggested change/clarification "...sub-second convergence of the Active router and..." => "...sub-second convergence for the process determining the Active router and..." or something equivalent. # Section 1: suggested change/clarification "this document demonstrates how... can enable faster detection..." => "this document specifies fast transition to a new Active router, upon detection of..." or something equivalent. # Section 2: "Supporting sub-second mode... in the data plane may prove challenging" => Would be best to hint at the main reason why (costs in terms of control traffic overhead?). "BFD already has many implementationq based on HW" => Cite at least one implementation, if possible? # Section 3: My Discriminator => cite RFC5880 upon first use of this term in the doc ;) "... starts transmitting BFD control packets with VRID as a source IP address and ..." => it is unclear how VRID (1 Byte) can be used as IP address. Can you rephrase/clarify? "... when a backup router detects failure of the Active router, ..." => using which mechanism/RFC ? I suggest citing it explicitly "... it reevaluates its role as VRID." => it is unclear how this happens exactly. If this is intentionally left unspecified as implementation-dependent, I suggest to say it explicitly in the doc. "... the new Active router MUST select My Discriminator and..." => it is unclear which discriminator is meant here. Do you mean the value locally allocated (as it was still Backup router)? # Section 5: "... to accelerate detecting a failure that affects VRRP" => it is unclear what in the doc accelerates *detecting* a failure. I suggest a rephrase such as "...to accelerate transition to a new Active router upon detection of BFD failure" or something equivalent.
- [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-rtgwg… Emmanuel Baccelli via Datatracker
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-r… Greg Mirsky