Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-11-23
Requested 2014-10-24
Authors Yakov Rekhter , Rahul Aggarwal , Nicolai Leymann , Wim Henderickx , Quintin Zhao , Richard Li
I-D last updated 2014-11-18
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -00 by Stig Venaas (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Pignataro
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-02-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2014-11-18
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2014-11-18

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

This document is on the Standards Track, and specifies two mechanisms for
Carrying PIM-SM in ASM mode Trees over P2MP mLDP LSPs.

Summary: Almost ready





CMP: Overall, the introduction is a bit hard to parse. It contains a number of
assumptions and expectations of the reader and notes. I suggest these
paragraphs be taken out into a separate subsection of the Intro.

   The first mechanism, described in Section 3, is optional for
   implementations, but the second mechanism, described in Section 4, is
   mandatory for all implementations claiming conformance to this

CMP: This being a STD Track document, is “mandatory” the same as “REQUIRED”
(see Section 1.1)? Is “optional” the same as “OPTIONAL”?

CMP: A nit here as well, the pointers to the Sections have a wrong offset
(should be S2 and S3).


CMP: Sometimes the text talks about “Source Active Auto-Discovery” and others
about “BGP Source Active Auto-Discovery”. See example below, I think it should
normalize on one of them:
 2.1 Originating Source Active Auto-Discovery Routes (Mechanism 1) ..  5
 2.2 Receiving BGP Source Active Auto-Discovery Route by LSR  .......  6

Hope this helps.


-- Carlos.
OPS-DIR mailing list