PIM Join/Prune Attributes for LISP Environments using Underlay Multicast
draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-09

Thanks to Peter Yee for the secdir evaluation.

Thank you to Stig Venaas for the follow-up to clear my DISCUSS position.

Thanks for this document. I have just a few comments. Only the second point is consequential, the others are stylistic.

- Section 2.2 para 2 "boxes" seems informal in a way inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the document.

- In Section 3.2 you say the Receiver RLOC field is "updated as follows". I think you must mean that you add the text you supply to the existing definition. As written, the most obvious interpretation would be a replacement, but that seems wrong. So maybe s/updated as follows/updated by appending the following text to the existing definition/. Even better (IMO) would be the clunky but unambiguous OLD/NEW construct, as in

```
OLD:
   Receiver RLOC:   The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to
      receive the unicast-encapsulated flow.

NEW:
   Receiver RLOC:   The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to
      receive the unicast-encapsulated flow.  The Receiver RLOC field of 
      the Receiver RLOC Attribute MAY contain a multicast IP address.  
      This field MUST only be used when the underlay network of the LISP 
      core supports IP Multicast transport.
```

Although now that I look at it written out like that, that doesn't hang together either. Please give a think to making this section so precise that even a quite uninformed engineer (such as myself :-) can read the two documents and know exactly what they're supposed to do, without having to exercise creativity. Maybe a start at that would be something along the lines of "... RFC 8059 is updated by permitting it to contain a multicast address when the RLOC is to be used to receive multicast traffic. For such RLOCs, the field is defined as follows:"

- In the same section, "source IP of the PIM Join/Prune" should be "source IP address of the PIM Join/Prune".

No objection  from WIT (Transport) perspective. But have to support Roman's discuss, it is a bit confusing whether it updating or obsolating.