[pim] Re: [OPS-DIR]Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07

["Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, changed OIF-list to OutgoingInterfaceList. Will submit -08 when the WGLC ends (after addressing more comments if any)

  *
Prasad

________________________________
From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 6:06 PM
To: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR]Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07


Thanks.  I don’t mind the 6381 reference as it does relate, but I think OutgoingInterfaceList is more generic, and I just read it oddly the first time through.



Thanks for fixing the other nits.



Joe



From: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 at 02:39
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR]Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07

Thanks Joe for your comments, please see inline below with GVP1>, I will submit the -08 version at the end of WGLC.

Thanks

Prasad



________________________________

From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 3:08 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR]Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07



Nevermind the OIF-list comment.  My brain wasn’t on, and I typically see this as OIL.  I think it still might be worth describing it as terminology, but it’s not specific to 6381.

 GVP1> Adding a reference to RFC6831 sounds a good idea, have done that. Hope you are ok with  this

Joe



From: Joe Clarke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 at 14:09
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [OPS-DIR]Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07

Reviewer: Joe Clarke
Review result: Has Nits

I have been asked to review this draft on behalf of the OPS directorate.  This
draft updates RFC8059 to specify PIM Receiver RLOC Join/Prune attribute to
connect multiple LISP sites when underlay IP multicast is used.  Overall, I
thought the document was clear, but I did find a few nitty issues.  The biggest
point of confusion for me was the mention of "oif-list" in Section 3.3.  This
is defined in RFC6381 (experimental) where they use OIF-list.  I think at least
an informative reference is needed for clarity of this term and the form
"OIF-list" should be used.

GVP1> Please see above, added reference to RFC6831

Other nits:

Section 3.2:

OLD:

This field MUST be used only  when the

NEW:

This field MUST only be used when then

I think this form is a bit clearer with the normative MUST.

 GVP1>  Fixed.

Section 3.3:

You have a duplicate "tree" there (i.e., "tree tree").

 GVP1>  Fixed.

_______________________________________________
OPS-DIR mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]