[MBONED] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-06: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for a very clear document that was an easy read.  I just have a few very
minor editorial suggestions, which need no specific reply:

— Section 2.1 —

   Source discovery
   in SSM is handled by some out-of-band mechanism (i.e., the
   application layer)

The “i.e.” seems a bit odd here to my eye.  I’d suggest wording this without
the parentheses altogether, thus:

NEW
   Source discovery
   in SSM is handled by some out-of-band mechanism in the
   application layer
END

— Section 2.3 —

   PIM-SSM expects that the sender's source address(es) is known in
   advance by receivers

The “is” sounds odd with “addresses”, and it’s always difficult to know what to
do for number agreement with things such as “address(es)”.  I suggest writing
around the problem this way:

NEW
   PIM-SSM expects the sender's source address(es) to be known in
   advance by receivers
END

— Section 3.2.2 —
There needs to be a hyphen in “network-wide”.

— Section 4.1 —

   This document recommends that the use of ASM is deprecated for
   interdomain multicast

This needs subjunctive mood: “that the use of ASM be deprecated”.