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
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
CC: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy.all@ietf.org,
 last-call@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bpim=5D_Re=3A_draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-14_ietf_last_call_Rt?=
	=?utf-8?q?gdir_review?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/OEJYXONFN1PR9ijtgex2WxtF5Qk>

--000000000000cc5fd8063b2e1052
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=E2=80=AFPM 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: =E2=80=9Cvia a controller-based mechanisms=E2=80=9D =E2=86=92 r=
emove plural: =E2=80=9Cvia a
> controller-based mechanism=E2=80=9D
>
> Section 3.1: =E2=80=9CThe appropriate respond is sent back=E2=80=A6=E2=80=
=9D =E2=86=92 should be: =E2=80=9CThe
> appropriate response is sent back=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D
>
> Section 6 (Security): =E2=80=9COverall, the security needs for P2MP polic=
y ping is
> same
> as [RFC8029].=E2=80=9D  =E2=80=94 grammatical fix: =E2=80=9C...are the sa=
me as...=E2=80=9D
>
> Section 5 (IANA): =E2=80=9CThis sub-type value is assigned from the stand=
ards
> Action of
> range...=E2=80=9D   =E2=80=94 is it better with : =E2=80=9C...from the St=
andards Action range of
> ...=E2=80=9D
>
> 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
>

--000000000000cc5fd8063b2e1052
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Linda,</div><div>I think you have mistakenly sent rev=
iew comments for=C2=A0<b>draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping</b> to the authors=
 of=C2=A0draft-ietf-pim-sr-policy.</div><div><br></div><div>Rishabh=C2=A0</=
div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div=
 dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 3:43=E2=80=AFPM L=
inda Dunbar via Datatracker &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:noreply@ietf.org" target=
=3D"_blank">noreply@ietf.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204=
,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Document: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy<br>
Title: Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy<br>
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar<br>
Review result: Has Nits<br>
<br>
Summary: This document is technically solid and aligns well with existing M=
PLS<br>
and SR OAM mechanisms.<br>
<br>
Some Nits though:<br>
<br>
Abstract: =E2=80=9Cvia a controller-based mechanisms=E2=80=9D =E2=86=92 rem=
ove plural: =E2=80=9Cvia a<br>
controller-based mechanism=E2=80=9D<br>
<br>
Section 3.1: =E2=80=9CThe appropriate respond is sent back=E2=80=A6=E2=80=
=9D =E2=86=92 should be: =E2=80=9CThe<br>
appropriate response is sent back=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D<br>
<br>
Section 6 (Security): =E2=80=9COverall, the security needs for P2MP policy =
ping is same<br>
as [RFC8029].=E2=80=9D=C2=A0 =E2=80=94 grammatical fix: =E2=80=9C...are the=
 same as...=E2=80=9D<br>
<br>
Section 5 (IANA): =E2=80=9CThis sub-type value is assigned from the standar=
ds Action of<br>
range...=E2=80=9D=C2=A0 =C2=A0=E2=80=94 is it better with : =E2=80=9C...fro=
m the Standards Action range of ...=E2=80=9D<br>
<br>
The following sentence is difficult to follow (Section 3.1.3):<br>
&quot;For example, when a P2MP Policy Ping or Traceroute packet enters an U=
nicast SR<br>
domain, it MUST be processed on the two interconnecting Replication Segment=
s,<br>
based on the Replication SID and its TTL value.&quot;.<br>
<br>
Best Regards, Linda Dunbar<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
pim mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:pim@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">pim@i=
etf.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:pim-leave@ietf.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">pim-leave@ietf.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000cc5fd8063b2e1052--