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

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Tue, 16 June 2020 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0399F3A0F36; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 17:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L30n5_zwlrJm; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 17:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAC933A0F31; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 17:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id E2310F21D19C954BDE8E; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:51:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 05G0p9a7076373; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:51:09 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:51:08 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:51:08 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95ee8177c93a20a55
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202006160851088213452@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsw=N107XYyLfAsYtMVcNOZZh5=hWS4o3WjCYO4KpoBjow@mail.gmail.com>
References: CAMMESsw=N107XYyLfAsYtMVcNOZZh5=hWS4o3WjCYO4KpoBjow@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
To: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: <draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement@ietf.org>, <pim-chairs@ietf.org>, <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 05G0p9a7076373
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/aKdstPNDPZJT402r04GmurAxfTU>
Subject: Re: [pim] =?utf-8?q?AD_Review_of_draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09?=
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:51:15 -0000

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>rg>;
抄送人:pim-chairs@ietf.org <pim-chairs@ietf.org>;pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>rg>;
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