Send again. From: Lucy yong Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:59 PM To: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team; 'draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp....@tool.ietf.org' Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-05 Multi-Path Time Synchronization Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 15-Sept-2016 IETF LC End Date: 28-Sept-2016 IESG Telechat date: 29-Sept-2016 Summary: This document specifies two new PIM join/prune attributes for facilitating PIM mcast transports across LISP sites. Major issues: the draft assumes that PIM works within individual LISP sites but PIM mcast transport may not be supported among LISP sites. However the mechanism itself does not enforce a unique (unicast or mcast) underlay transport among LISP sites. Could some ETRs request unicast transport, other request multicast transport? The mechanism requires all LISP xTRs to run PIM protocol, right? PIM join/prune msg are designed for PIM protocol. These two attributes are specifically designed for LISP purpose. Any concern here? From PIM perspective, they are optional attributes; are they "MUST" attributes for LISP (mcast)? Minor issues: the draft uses many PIM and LISP terms without any explanation. It is hard for a reader to read it without knowledge of PIM and LISP protocol and terms. It is not clear if Receiver RLOC attribute only applies to unicast transport or both unicast/mcast transport. Need to clarify. Backward compatibility, without these two attributes in a join/prune msg from a LISP ETR, what that mean? Nits/editorial comments: Section 1: "to be notified should the root of the distribution tree move to another site." Should "should" be "that"? Section 5: several 'must' should be "MUST" Regards, Lucy
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
