Early Review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-05
review-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-05-rtgdir-early-niven-jenkins-2023-11-10-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2023-11-10 | |
Requested | 2023-10-18 | |
Requested by | Stephane Litkowski | |
Authors | Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Lenny Giuliano , Keyur Patel , IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Prasad Mishra , Arkadiy Gulko | |
I-D last updated | 2023-11-10 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -05
by Ben Niven-Jenkins
(diff)
Genart Early review of -05 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Ben Niven-Jenkins |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/5BebD-QR83otyNnEVjQ3iPFV60Y | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2023-11-10 |
review-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-05-rtgdir-early-niven-jenkins-2023-11-10-00
Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast/ The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-05.txt Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins Review Date: 10 November 2023 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. Comments: The document is well written and easy to read and understand. Nits: Section 1.2.4 - “For unlabeled (x,g) unidirectional trees, the upstream peer MAY prefer LAN interfaces to send traffic, since multiple downstream peers may be reached simultaneously, or it may make a decision based on local policy, e.g., for load balancing purpose.” I do not understand why the first MAY is capitalised. Is this a mistake and it should be in lowercase like the other instances of may in that sentence? Section 1.2.5 - “PIM and BGP MUST not be used simultaneously between two neighbors for multicast purpose, and routers connected to the same LAN MUST be transitioned during the same maintenance window.” I think the “MUST not” should be “MUST NOT”? Thanks Ben