Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09

Hi Alvaro,

Thank you very much for your detailed review!

And thank you for your guidance for the modification!

We will have a discussion about the modification and modify the draft as soon as possible. :-)

(Sorry I cut some details because the mail scale limitation.)

Best regards,

Sandy

原始邮件

发件人：AlvaroRetana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
收件人：draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement@ietf.org>;
抄送人：pim-chairs@ietf.org <pim-chairs@ietf.org>;pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>;
日 期 ：2020年06月16日 05:45
主 题 ：[pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09

Dear authors:

Hi!  I hope everyone is safe and healthy.

I (finally!) finished my review of this document.  Thank you for the
effort so far.

I think that this document is not ready and needs significant work to
move forward.  There are many parts that are repetitive and redundant.
Also, there would be a lot of benefit from an English-language
edit/review.  I tried to cover many of the points in my comments, but
probably left some out...

Before getting into the details, I have a couple of points I want to
highlight up here:

(1) How does this document interact with rfc8775 (PIM DR Load Balancing)?
    Should be BDR always be a GDR?  Can a BDR not be a GDR?  rfc8775 is not
    even mentioned.

(2) As far as I can see draft-mankamana-pim-bdr has not been adopted yet.
    Assuming that is the plan, how would the two mechanisms interact?  Given
    that draft-mankamana-pim-bdr doesn't add options, and §5 says that if no
    options are received then the routers MUST use rfc7761, how does a router
    implementing this specification tell the difference?

    I realize that some of these questions may be better directed at
    draft-mankamana-pim-bdr, but because the WG agreed that a statement
    relating the two should be included in this document [1], then I'm
    asking now.  I would really like to understand what the WG expects.

(3) The Shepherd writeup [2] says that there is an implementation and
    deployment of this specification.  *But* the IANA Considerations section
    lists the code points as TBD.  What's the status of the implementation?
    Are there specific code points that should be suggested to IANA?  An
    rfc7942-type section would be useful to justify specific code points, if
    needed.

(4) The election algorithm (§4.2) is a word-by-word copy from rfc2328!  It is
    good to reuse technology, but in this case (1) the description is out of
    context, and (2) the election function from rfc7761 would make a much
    better (and familiar) base for the description (and, as far as I can
    tell, should yield the same result).  Please update the description.

I expect a significant change in the structure of the document to move forward.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/hWi6rDIbbhcEjEuQ_y3z1o6Wulw/

[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement/shepherdwriteup

[Line numbers from idnits.]

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim