[pim] draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-14 ietf last call Rtgdir review

Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 30 July 2025 23:44 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <175391909879.247026.12413414770331415979@dt-datatracker-5bd446d5fd-c47nq>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:44:58 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: 7RMMDUO5XWM2R2BDIWJEHGTVNUA34E7A
CC: draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Reply-To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
Subject: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-14 ietf last call Rtgdir review
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/BRSNpRa8g7HFpwJvKC44YoUYSGY>

Document: draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping
Title: P2MP Policy Ping
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Has Nits

Summary: This document is technically solid and aligns well with existing MPLS
and SR OAM mechanisms.

Some Nits though:

Abstract: “via a controller-based mechanisms” → remove plural: “via a
controller-based mechanism”

Section 3.1: “The appropriate respond is sent back…” → should be: “The
appropriate response is sent back…”

Section 6 (Security): “Overall, the security needs for P2MP policy ping is same
as [RFC8029].”  — grammatical fix: “...are the same as...”

Section 5 (IANA): “This sub-type value is assigned from the standards Action of
range...”   — is it better with : “...from the Standards Action range of ...”

The following sentence is difficult to follow (Section 3.1.3):
"For example, when a P2MP Policy Ping or Traceroute packet enters an Unicast SR
domain, it MUST be processed on the two interconnecting Replication Segments,
based on the Replication SID and its TTL value.".

Best Regards, Linda Dunbar

[pim] draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-14 ietf las… Linda Dunbar via Datatracker