Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-08

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

Kathleen, thanks for the comments. I have made changes to reflect all your editorial comments. I will be posting a draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-09.txt with yours and Ralph's comments.

Dino

On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:23 PM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-08
> Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty
> Review Date: 3 October 2011
> IETF LC End Date: 28 September 2011
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
> 
> Summary:  The document is ready with nits.  I am sorry about the late review!
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> The last paragraph of section 3 introduces the use of the term 'oif-list' within a definition for 'Unicast Encapsulated PIM Join/Prune Message'.  I think it would be helpful to define this term.
> 
> Section 4, consider breaking the first sentence of #6 into two sentences:
> "When a packet is originated by the multicast host in the source
>     site, it will flow to one or more ITRs which will prepend a LISP
>     header by copying the group address to the outer destination
>     address field and insert its own locator address in the outer
>     source address field."
> 
> Section 5, 2nd paragraph: Recommend changing from:
> "In a LISP site, packets
> are originated from hosts using their allocated EIDs, those addresses
> are used to identify the host as well as where in the site's topology
> the host resides but not how and where it is attached to the
> Internet."
> To: "In a LISP site, packets originate from hosts using their allocated EIDs.  EID addresses
> are used to identify the host as well as where in the site's topology
> the host resides, but not how and where it is attached to the
> Internet."
> 
> Section 7, IGMP section, second sentence, add a comma:
> To: "One being that they are link-
>    local and not used over site boundaries and second, they advertise
>    group addresses that don't need translation."
> 
> Section 7: PIM-SSN - consider breaking this into a couple of sentences to make it easier to read.
> "In this case, there is a small
>    modification to the operation of the PIM protocol (but not to any
>    message format) to support taking a Join/Prune message originated
>    inside of a LISP site with embedded addresses from the EID
>    namespace and converting them to addresses from the RLOC namespace
>    when the Join/Prune message crosses a site boundary."
> 
> Section 7: PIM-Bidir Section - consider breaking the following into a couple of sentences:
> "When using
>    Bidir-PIM for inter-domain multicast routing, it is recommended to
>    use staticly configured RPs so core routers think the Bidir group
>    is associated with an ITR's RLOC as the RP address and site
>    routers think the Bidir group is associated with the site resident
>    RP with an EID address."
> 
> Section 9.2: This section is the first place where 'you' is used.  The writing style changes, you may want to rewrite and make it consistent with the rest of the document.  There is a 'you' in 9.3 as well and 'we' is used in section 11.
> 
> Section 12: Should the 'must' in the first paragraph be in caps?
> "Mtrace functionality must be consistent with unicast traceroute
> functionality where all hops from multicast receiver to multicast
> source are visible."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>