Re: [pim] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-10: (with COMMENT)

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Eric.

The simple answer is: No, the document intends to solve the problem for
subnets with 3 or more PIM routers. So for the purpose of just the document
being correct i think we're fine.

Having said this:

The complex answer is: There can be asserts not caused by PIM itself, but
because of IGMP/MLD, and these can happen with 2 or more routers. But the
document does not explicitly try to address them, because there should be
better solutions than asserts (and hence assert packing) to solve duplicates
resulting from IGMP/MLD. So i would not even want to promote assert packing
to solve this issue, even if it potentially could help as long as the
better solutions are not deployed.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 09:42:17PM -0800, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote:
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-assert-packing/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-10
> CC @ekline
> 
> ## Nits
> 
> ### S2
> 
> * "with more than 2 PIM routers"
> 
>   Should this actually read "with 2 or more PIM routers"?
> 
> 

-- 
---
[e-mail]