Hi Carlos,
1. Yes. Section 5 rather than Seciton 4 is relevant. The last paragraph of the
Intro will be updated to reflect this.
2. OK. The text will be updated.
Thanks,
Mingui
________________________________________
From: Carlos Pignataro [cpignata(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 3:20
To: rtg-dir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; trill(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-04
Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review result: Has Nits
Hi,
This is a short yet well written document. Looks really good. Just a
couple of small questions/comments:
1. It's not clear exactly what from RFC 7175 is being updated by
Section 4. This is based on the last paragraph of the Intro, yet
Section 5 also seems relevant to that update.
2. In the IANA COnsiderations, it would be useful to explicitly list
that the "RBridge Channel Protocols" registry is part of the
"Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters"
Thanks,
Carlos Pignataro.