Subject: [pim] comments about draft-hb-pim-light

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 10:08:50 +0800 (CST)

Hi Hooman and co-author, 
After reading draft-hb-pim-light, IMO this is a WG work we should do. But many details need to be added for specification and clarification. 
1. The affection for states on the interface needs to be specified, such as (*, G), (S, G), and so on. 
2. The affection for BSM (RFC5059) needs to be specified. 
3. Though I know this draft is used for PIM-SM, not PIM-DM, the clarification is still needed since the title of this draft is PIM light, not PIM-SM light. 
4. If this function can still be used in case of some of the ingress/egress nodes don't support it. 
5. White list or other something is needed for the source verification, only the j/p packet comes from the BGP neighbors (For MVPN, GTM, etc.), or the static configured neighbors, can be accepted. 
6. Since there is no hello packet any more, the DR election is not necessary, so if there is no DR at all?
7. PIM overlay permits different IBBR to select different EBBR, does PIM light permit it? If PIM light permit it, if assert message is unnecessary? What's the use case of keeping assert message in PIM light? 
>From my personal perspective, "PIM-SM light interface" is better for titling. 
BTW, if the reference for draft-hfa-bier-pim-signaling should be draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling? And seems like there should be no IANA registry.
Thanks,
Sandy