[RTG-DIR]Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-05

Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 16 September 2024 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from [10.244.2.67] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054B2C14CE55; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.24.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <172652938565.218.17783727892862872147@dt-datatracker-65695bf5bc-rgg8z>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:45 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: WFF3TZJID545RZ6BKUC3252FSLCYJGBY
X-Message-ID-Hash: WFF3TZJID545RZ6BKUC3252FSLCYJGBY
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-05
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/QUUy0fegCawowsXLwWyMvIJQycQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-dir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-leave@ietf.org>

Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Has Issues

This is a Routing Directorate Review. 
It should be treated as any other WG LC. 

Summary: This is an informational draft suggesting an TI-LFA for MoFRR.

Section 1 states that this document considers:
a) PIM over Native IP 
2) MDT SAFI multicast VPN [RFC6037] and [RFC6514] - covering PIM-SSM, PIM-SM Tree, 
and BIDR TREe. 

My concern is this draft does not consider the Segment List work
in inter-domain cases for P2MP situations.  

The text references Segment IDs and Segment lists and tunnels without giving enough 
detail to determine if the proposals in the draft-ietf-idr-sr-p2mp-policy
might solve the case in a clear way. 

I am filing this immediate report to ask the authors and AD charge what the 
exact scope of this document. 

Are you looking at IGP's only?  If so, what are the restrictions on SIDs? 
If you are looking at Tunnels that use BGP Tunnel Encapsulation to pass 
SIDs and candidate routes, what is the link here. 

I will re-review if I can determine the context. 
I apologize, but the basic interaction with SIDs are unclear.