[pim] AD review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 13 February 2015 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF411A0141 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:33:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 vbdjH7ERH0NN for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:33:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yh0-x22c.google.com (mail-yh0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E0641A00E6 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yh0-f44.google.com with SMTP id f73so8790770yha.3 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:33:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Mv6rWXa9CfkFC+aS67Lu+xiUqvXSR1oSd+qTrF5WNyw=; b=e/c9srdTJ0ffqcoHSaqz0hds8HSYTMpY6tWI3T/ZICat7RCs/sce5NwYaJ8TjUWe+x QoTBn3J+BCNKRBeDQvFqOD9pFER/IsR+fJdeUudodNhBGBm2iYhwa5C+AXdOAiPKi/ZN 263TaaWjMDpRELFKtNoyE4B/TA95IPUKfqa0/QX80cH9JZxZaRwIYC4bATB6FLpxr6FP EU1gM07rsrVCMAMLu3J6QimlQMglyuJhOcBcdXBnFTsZJge5+6JfTxlqyPIxoT9IhpSn +laqbMbfN5A8+3k4SlG38IILLvNxuOA7WxvsiWcSO2F5/r5IjGZQ6aL2rQAinQedrXZY 0Gsg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.17.109 with SMTP id i73mr9444618yhi.107.1423848818482; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:33:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.133.197 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:33:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:33:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rcE6r0s_gtDRett0eagxTkkLHi+h9pyAx3Jw+adAu5dOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: pim@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0158bc660a266d050efba366"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/j1-jDJWrcMd3un__IzajFH6eD60>
Subject: [pim] AD review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:33:53 -0000

I have done my usual AD review of this draft before progressing it.  I have
a few comments below - of which the first must be addressed.  I will have
this start in IETF Last Call as is with the expectation of an update very
soon.  I do apologize for taking so long to process the draft.
Thanks for the work to update and advance PIM to Internet Standard!


1) The header needs to specfy "Obsoletes 4601" and the Abstract should be
modified to say
"This document obsoletes RFC 4601 by replacing it, addressing the errata
filed against it, removing  the optional (*,*,RP) and PIM Multicast Border
Router features that lack sufficient deployment experience (see Appendix
A), and moving the PIM specification to Internet Standard."

instead of just

"This document addresses errata filed against RFC 4601, and removes the
optional (*,*,RP) feature that lacks sufficient deployment experience."


Nits:

1) In Sec 6.3.2.2:  The "to" was removed from this sentence incorrectly.
"In order to simplify the management problem, it may be acceptable use
the same authentication algorithm and authentication parameters,
regardless of the sending RP and regardless of the destination DR."

2) Typo in Appendix A: PIM Mulitcast Border Router (PMBR)

Thanks,
Alia