[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-03.txt

"Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com> Mon, 11 June 2012 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1741421F8484 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QPgK0jAajL2a for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DBB21F846A for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7fc66d000006fdc-11-4fd59ea299e6
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 30.75.28636.2AE95DF4; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:30:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:30:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4FD59EA1.9030008@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:30:41 +0200
From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-pim-ecmp.authors@tools.ietf.org, mmcbride7@gmail.com, pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6ieVf9DQ7c1bf40XOD2WLzq8WM FldffWax+HpvLpPFz4ZzzA6sHjtn3WX3WLLkJ5PHis0rGT2+XP7MFsASxWWTkpqTWZZapG+X wJWx9qVKwRPeirYF69gbGF9zdTFyckgImEhMv7CSCcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAKUaJd7f2skA4 axkl3t64ywZSxSugLTH9wSl2EJtFQFXi1r4WsG42AXOJ1o0bweKiAsES87pvskDUC0qcnPkE bJCIQBujxObpd8AamAX0JY782Q1mCwuYSizZ0coGEbeVuDDnOguELS+x/e0cZhBbSEBTYvLN pcwTGPlnIZk7C0nLLCQtCxiZVzEK5yZm5qSXG+qlFmUmFxfn5+kVp25iBIbrwS2/dXcwnjon cohRmoNFSZyXK2m/v5BAemJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQbGDtuPJrGZ6/Kr5hhNfLLp ++t3vxcZBlk9uPr70O6F3XExdmc+xml+l1/aelnMpI6xI+ljQPj05M//fJy41y9XFul/pdKR dE9u9sxHhs/fHhdZX7+Y726nksXeJx6Pgormb7sQJX57xV6D66tfbhJ4O8spwrj+rYHqkj45 Z1mddD/vjx8mOTMrKLEUZyQaajEXFScCABcBJX8lAgAA
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-03.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:30:45 -0000

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-03.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
Review Date: 2012-06-11
IETF LC End Date: 2012-06-12
IESG Telechat date: 2012-06-21

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

- The Abstract should not include references. Just delete "[RFC4601]".

- Perhaps this is a matter of personal taste... but Section 3.5.2 is 
devoted to describe the format of the PIM ECMP Redirect message. I think 
this is a section where you should describe the format, but you shouldn't 
write normative statements as for what to do with those fields. For 
example, I am referring to statements like:

       Address of desired upstream
       neighbor where the downstream receiver SHOULD redirect PIM

       the receiving
       router of this message MUST use the "Interface ID", instead of
       "Neighbor Address", to identify the new RPF neighbor

       an ECMP
       Redirect message MUST be discarded if the "Interface ID" field...

I think all these sentences including a normative MUST, SHOULD, etc. 
should be written in Sections 3.1. or 3.2 (Procedures). This means that 
the format (current section 3.5) should be moved to a place prior to 3.1 
and 3.2, because the procedures needs to explain what to do with all 
these fields.

Miguel A. Garcia
Ericsson Spain