[Tsv-art] Re: draft-ietf-pim-gaap-18 ietf last call Tsvart review

[Mike McBride <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tommy,

Thank you for the review, just now getting to all of the various reviews.
Below is what we added which should satisfy your comments:

On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 5:15 PM Tommy Pauly via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Document: draft-ietf-pim-gaap
> Title: Group Address Allocation Protocol (GAAP)
> Reviewer: Tommy Pauly
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
> document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the
> IETF
> discussion list for information.
>
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> [e-mail] if you reply to or forward this review.
>
> Thanks to the authors for a clear and detailed document. As an experimental
> document (where the experiment is clear, with a plan to update and revise
> based on experience), I don't see any major concerns.
>
> Some transport-specific aspects that are worth clarification:
>
> - I appreciate the callout in section 7 for UDP usage guidelines, with
> fragmentation called out. The document says that fragmentation SHOULD
> be avoided on multi-record claim packets, and provides one example, but
> could benefit from a stronger recommendation of a size to fit within
> (such as 1232 to fit within a 1280 byte IPv6 packet).
>

It now reads
    "A sender SHOULD keep a multi-record Claim message small enough to
avoid IP
    fragmentation on the path, and SHOULD limit the total UDP payload
    of a Claim message to 1232 octets so that it fits within the
    1280-octet IPv6 minimum MTU without fragmentation (this bounds
    the number of records per message well below the maximum Record
    Count of 255 when Group Names are long);"


> - What are the expected scales of number of nodes participating? When
> nodes send out periodic claims, I could imagine this having higher levels
> of traffic if there is a very high number of nodes. Likely this is
> something that needs to be understood via experimentation, but if there
> is anything that can be said now about potential scalability concerns
> with large numbers of nodes, that would be useful to call out.


We added this:
"The scalability of periodic Claim traffic has not yet been
measured for deployments with large numbers of GAAP nodes
claiming the same group name. Operators of such deployments
should monitor Claim traffic volume and tune deployment-specific
parameters as needed; this is expected to be an area of active
investigation as operational experience with this experimental
protocol accumulates."

thanks,
mike