Skip to main content

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 07)
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 07)
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