Subject: [trill] AD review of draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-06

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:46:34 -0500

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-06.
I would first like to thank the authors - Mingui, Santosh, and Vengada - as
well as the WG for their work on this document.

My primary concern is that this document currently has a normative
dependency on draft-ietf-trill-resilient-trees-08.  I do not understand
why.  I can certainly see it being useful as an informative reference for
how p2mp BFD might be useful in a TRILL network - but I don't see a need to
understand or implement that draft to support this technology.  Text in
this draft (e.g. "If the head is keeping track of some or all of the
tails [I-D.ietf-trill-resilient-trees], it has a session of type
MultipointClient per tail that it cares
about [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail].") could use improvement - such
as "An example use is when a multicast tree root needs to keep track of all
the receivers as in [I-D.ietf-trill-resilient-trees]; this can be done by
maintaining a session of type MultipointClient per receiver that is of
interest, as described in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail]."

I am going to request IETF Last Call for this draft - with it being extra
long due to the holidays - and expect an update from the authors.

Regards,
Alia

---

From: "Zhangmingui (Martin)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 01:32:05 +0000

Hi Alia,

Your review is much appreciated.

We’ve made the draft-ietf-trill-resilient-trees-08 to be a informative reference. The suggested improvement is sensible. The draft has been updated accordingly.

The 07 version has been uploaded.

Thanks!
Mingui

From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 5:47 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-06

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-06. I would first like to thank the authors - Mingui, Santosh, and Vengada - as well as the WG for their work on this document.

My primary concern is that this document currently has a normative dependency on draft-ietf-trill-resilient-trees-08.  I do not understand why.  I can certainly see it being useful as an informative reference for how p2mp BFD might be useful in a TRILL network - but I don't see a need to understand or implement that draft to support this technology.  Text in this draft (e.g. "If the head is keeping track of some or all of the tails [I-D.ietf-trill-resilient-trees], it has a session of type MultipointClient per tail that it cares about [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail].") could use improvement - such as "An example use is when a multicast tree root needs to keep track of all the receivers as in [I-D.ietf-trill-resilient-trees]; this can be done by maintaining a session of type MultipointClient per receiver that is of interest, as described in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail]."

I am going to request IETF Last Call for this draft - with it being extra long due to the holidays - and expect an update from the authors.

Regards,
Alia