[RTG-DIR]Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-light-06

[Henning Rogge via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Henning Rogge
Review result: Has Nits

Hello,
I was asked to do a RTG review on the pimp-light-draft, this review is based on
revision 06 of the draft.

General comment:

Multicast in general can be quite complex to get right, so having simplified
protocol options (like this draft) for some situations is a good idea. Content
of this draft reads good, its just the graphics (and their explanation) could
use a bit more polish.

Section 3.2.2:

I think the graphics in 3.2.2 is a little bit too compact with too many things
going on. I assume that the domains are meant to be vertical "slices" and the
PIM Domains are the groups A-B-E and the group D-E-F, the BIER domain would
contain B-C-D-E-F? I think this part needs a bit more text that just states
which group is meant by each "annotation". Its difficult to see which "line" in
this graphics is a connection between nodes and which is meant to mark the
domain areas. Maybe it would help to explicitly state the domain membership
when the domain are first mentioned in this section?

Section 3.4:

I think the description of the graphics here in the text is better than in
3.2.2, but this graphics also feels a bit "cramped". Maybe UBER and DBER could
be just described in the text instead of putting it into the graphics?

Something like
"In another example, if PLI is configured automatically, as an example in BIER
case, when the downstream BIER Edge Router (DBER) node D is no longer
reachable, the upstream BIER Edge Router (UBER) node B..."

Henning Rogge