[Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05

Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com> Mon, 17 October 2016 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <lucy.yong@huawei.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 34F89129484 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.651
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bMHjzu3mknfh for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C24012940E for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CTI49074; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:59:13 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML703-CAH.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:59:10 +0100
Received: from DFWEML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([]) by DFWEML703-CAH.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:59:08 -0700
From: Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp.all@tool.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp.all@tool.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05
Thread-Index: AdIoqIIwMFd8/JCWRcyhnVpYgEv1EQ==
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:59:07 +0000
Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D572E1B24@dfweml501-mbb>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D572E1B24dfweml501mbb_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.58051F81.01DB, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 47789c7cc2a6698298cb7c0523a39e7d
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/RWeu0dwQC1iKON4sVgGHbKLXm1c>
Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 17 Oct 2016 18:59:19 -0000

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


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"