Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-13: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - It does not appear that you have fully addressed the TSVART comments (thanks Brian Trammell). Specifically, the (S,G) (*,G) definition is still not there. - In the abstract, it refers to "the above services" and I have no idea what that is referring to. - Please expand MLD, NLRI, and DF on first use or in the glossary. (4.1.1) 1. When the first hop PE receives several IGMP Membership Reports (Joins), belonging to the same IGMP version, from different attached hosts for the same (*,G) or (S,G), it SHOULD send a single BGP message corresponding to the very first IGMP Membership Request (BGP update as soon as possible) for that (*,G) or (S,G). This is confusingly phrased, enough that I think it threw off the TSVART reviewer. There is no delay waiting for multiple joins; the PE just sends BGP for the first and ignores the rest. Or perhaps I've misunderstood? Please rephrase. - Relatedly, if a PE receives (S, G) and later (*, G), should it withdraw the (S, G), since the latter join is a superset of the former? (9) It appears most of the fields in 9.1 through 9.3 are identical; it would shorten things dramatically if you either had a common section defining them or simply referred to Sec 9.1. Moreover, as this appears to be cut-and-paste, there are mistakes like 9.3 referring to "joins" when it's talking about leaves. (9) as you observe that the Source Length can be zero-length for (*,G) routes, it would be useful to say that the group length can also be zero for (*,*) joins. (it might also to constrain it so that if the group length is zero, the source length MUST also be zero, unless (S, *) joins are possible). _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
