Sorry, I did not have time to study RFC6831 for this review work and may not
interpret the draft properly by reading it. I trust you on the protocol design
and have no objection on Jari's decision.
Could you make this sentence more readable?
It determines the downstream destination for unicast head-end replication
and identifies the
receiver ETR that needs to be notified should the root of the
distribution tree move to another site.
"should be", "moving"?
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 1:07 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: Lucy yong; draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-l...@tools.ietf.org; General
Area Review Team; Stig Venaas
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05
> Many thanks for your review.
> Dino, Stig, does this discussion lead you to consider adding some
> clarifications to the document? I am not going to require those (just posted
> a no-obj for the document on today’s telechat), but wanted to give you an
> opportunity to consider that.
The base LISP multicast architecture is all explained in RFC6831. From the type
of commentary from Lucy’s email, it led me to believe she (1) had not read
RFC6831 or (2) did not understand the content of RFC6831.
Discussing how LISP multicast works in a PIM document is a misplacement of
information and risks contradicting what is in the LISP published RFCs.
Gen-art mailing list