Re: [pim] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-09: (with COMMENT)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
thank you for the review and suggested text. I've updated the draft and the
attached diff now includes that change.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:24 PM John Scudder via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-09: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I support Martin’s discuss position, and have one other nit. The first
> sentence
> in the below is very difficult to parse:
>
>    If a PIM-SM router is configured to monitor the head by using p2mp
>    BFD, referred to through this document as 'tail', receives a PIM-
>    Hello packet with the BFD Discriminator PIM Hello option, the tail
>    MAY create a p2mp BFD session of type MultipointTail, as defined in
>    [RFC8562].
>
> Suggested rewrite: “A PIM-SM router that is configured to monitor the head
> by
> using p2mp BFD is referred to throughout this document as a “tail”. When
> such a
> tail receives a PIM-Hello…”
>
>
>
>