IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pim] Re: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-14 ietf last call Rtgdir review

Rishabh Parekh <rishabhp@gmail.com> Wed, 30 July 2025 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rishabhp@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pim@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: pim@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA45B4D91A48; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JcwfOwtBWwQR; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95BCD4D91A41; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-b391ca6146eso273520a12.3; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1753918897; x=1754523697; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Jn96V7xcc18jTPGDnYwNb/W5pCVfnWVzuhsW6JGE+qk=; b=AkT5x36MA62e6FbNVj0sxm8xz3/r81OaJABF4v3677N5pXPstUi1d6VJ+9gHkrhW8s Jj25l2yGcpK8zBskPfbP6RvJNuQM3BYdbGgkKlF4BjCMq/mmjWmpx6gNOljzlOGDKULy cRPfFqyFy+vYC22AccUSYh5+JCioAZxpkf09a1zBuS5a2DDbt9vyYpC22zWgjQ6A3tIn cZ2vrG1FGqQqPN7TwssF0VoQJthFNNPLfUdUeLsBInBqmjCCBhZtUSfEhJ7n4gTVAEUu LG6BZUUP1kJ5TPH2TJbtu/v3m1gRTfV+gkxfXw+audfsKkaEsH0ijmcqtS1bl8fWWYr1 sFVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1753918897; x=1754523697; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Jn96V7xcc18jTPGDnYwNb/W5pCVfnWVzuhsW6JGE+qk=; b=VA6ME1yV6lZYR8Aco59Xa1xPagWlvleJowMAvd98L25Kg+Dca9BFIPYSblQiruses+ R9MyYYwVIXQW6pviVKSAGEFgiyrzChy68nHQplWYJw0kU4mRkHjWO8MWpw2+8bg7DF7P 2vj7FnJDEf202QW8fw0vh1hEGfiCfKcY04ipoKBg9qaGkTz3gbzEaiEHKB1P7OujMmcB VEm4wF25e+sd2TYHxRsTFkv2sAXC2DgaDQrNAcH5MwdssRtpJwnZ9HzjLLtbd6GYLwXV hZviLD61E37BiCPQlVB64fhkf9WQwPcJCi/ikrS2dba1nnD2k9auReRy81Q/1/Fy5eZq xwog==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVnlelvBf/9qMqXPsUUu9GEpsvw88PrDAWodmiNmZebsjoLXEsnA4bJIeisjvvPNzWDqJ4wlRIp5TVH7C0iXSVlPc4cYA/R6ViMyytjBqHQGl4=@ietf.org, AJvYcCWuKF0p5USnXddjuMkljS3SPx8FVdAz0GKx8UwcqV65+ZR1+yPo27hvA21tcypFqntZ5qYB@ietf.org, AJvYcCXZLZcYk+VpNwrdHIJQjtHIBqXSltxB3qV83LgoMozHv3yofJtLDqIBAjkgJzyBaHYdWNR/kk4m3ypJ@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyRV0rIfSWp2m6E+yGo/OpneA+S+zAXDE9plcowl6lEXcMk8sGw Dz7407YggavRL/LCXXAsNg56sH/xUVfmxQNeby1+nhPd4jmXihrTFPCZN0EGn/MtLjIVC5CgB9N mx6+hp5at3LCegok2qyL64usMVTLMnKryaCng
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsNawcMjRyP1CETgxA5RWtkQAKeCqTpId7gdq+2HLoYzMFCiEmkTzSDAilGZAG 3xSF06Q0CPndCnNtDbN8Q0xoSad0dLGIRq0rY1ogPzuXee9w3JDQdWt9VP6jehsW3IRLhxLapnn T0xXqHkkwOowfqgyVVjNj1RPSICWlMSeYUIMqkDusoTaztutz+DUz2OFDMCH9v9bCFBJZSuzkNf OE4Fyo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IETDQsMFjVfzhpGxnXtiHP0rkUV1nGAVzbbWWq+Rz7nKNxX8IZXMI6gF60OLj3JRDBdPvB0DYWFRS4bcxcFdvo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2f8f:b0:311:e8cc:4253 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-31f5dd8cdf5mr8052543a91.2.1753918896626; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <175391539071.245276.9064847699826212982@dt-datatracker-5bd446d5fd-c47nq>
In-Reply-To: <175391539071.245276.9064847699826212982@dt-datatracker-5bd446d5fd-c47nq>
From: Rishabh Parekh <rishabhp@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:41:25 -0700
X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXxkR1AB5DbsbMhpk9fK1G2QuljtWQ8slvZCcawEYzkEySKA1kjmveRWpio
Message-ID: <CABjMoXZnbF_teFN-Z7cRGCrw=-Y26vwPTrpeXaxFV3CZ0NOdXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc5fd8063b2e1052"
Message-ID-Hash: 46OTL2POVTV7HFQ43AD7I25BJGYOTAGK
X-Message-ID-Hash: 46OTL2POVTV7HFQ43AD7I25BJGYOTAGK
X-MailFrom: rishabhp@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pim.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [pim] Re: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-14 ietf last call Rtgdir review
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/OEJYXONFN1PR9ijtgex2WxtF5Qk>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pim-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pim-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pim-leave@ietf.org>

Linda,
I think you have mistakenly sent review comments for
*draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping* to the authors
of draft-ietf-pim-sr-policy.

Rishabh



On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 3:43 PM Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Document: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy
> Title: Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy
> 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 mailing list -- pim@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to pim-leave@ietf.org
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status