IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-15
review-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-15-opsdir-lc-liu-2025-08-06-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 22) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-07-28 | |
| Requested | 2025-07-08 | |
| Requested by | Mohamed Boucadair | |
| Authors | Rishabh Parekh (editor) , Daniel Voyer , Clarence Filsfils , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-10-07 (Latest revision 2025-09-04) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -14
by Linda Dunbar
(diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Bing Liu (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -13 by Corey Bonnell (diff) Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -13 by David L. Black (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Bing Liu |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/nMjUeJKvfjWORQeOpcjqLGMKgFo | |
| Reviewed revision | 15 (document currently at 22) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2025-08-06 |
review-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-15-opsdir-lc-liu-2025-08-06-00
Hi Dear authors, I'm assigned to review draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy by OPSDir. General status: Ready with Nits I read the latest 15 version, and I believe it is ready with a couple of nits as the following. - Section 4.2. Controller Functions I find this section is a bit ambiguous in general. It reads like to specify some minimal requirements for the controllers, but there are no “MUST” key words. If it is some considerations, then it seems a bit unnecessary since these are quite apparent requirements. I think the real essential thing is the “SR P2MP tree” capability awareness, both for the nodes and the controllers. If this document wants to address this issue, I think there needs to be a bit more comprehensive description. If not, simply make it an assumption/requirement is also ok. Small wording issues: - Some sections uses “forwarding plane”, while some uses “dataplane”. Maybe it’s better to use only one. Btw, is “dataplane” a conventional word? I guess “data plane” might be more formal usage (published RFCs seem to use it). - Section 4.3: there are two “period” at the end of the first paragraph.