Hi Dino,

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"?

-----Original Message-----
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

> Lucy,
> 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.
> Jari

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

Reply via email to