[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

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 see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 

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-draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16.txt 
Reviewer: Michael Richardson
Review Date: 2018-05-12
IETF LC End Date: unknown
Intended Status: Standards Track 

Summary: 

This document is basically ready for publication, but has presentation nits
that should be considered prior to publication. 

Comments:

It seems like a well written document, with an intelligent and well-throught
out way to extend BFD to multicast uses.

I found the document a bit too abstract as it attempted to apply itself to
any place that BFD is used.  I would like to perhaps better
understand how it is used in some real multicast situations (MPLS,
PIM/IP-level multicast).

I believe that my lack of familiarity with some of those technologies might
be keeping me in the dark. 

I'm not generally happy with documents that say:
    "The following procedure replaces section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880]."

because it's difficult to know what is going on without having the two
documents next to eachother.  For an implementer, I'm not sure that there
is any savings by doing this either, it seems to be solely for the
convenience of those writing it.

I would prefer to have section 4.13 actually number the steps of the pseudo-code.
As far as I can see, all of the pseudo-code of 5880 is being replaced, so
this is not as much as a patch, so I don't see why not to number the
pseudo-code.  (Like BASIC if you want, or with numbered lists)

I did not evaluate the pseudo-code to determine if it made logical sense, it
seemed well written and understandable.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.

Nits:

"the tail declares the path to having failed."		<- s/having/have/


-- 
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-