Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-
review-ietf-pim-ecmp-genart-lc-garcia-2012-06-19-00

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-03.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.A.Garcia at ericsson.com>
Review Date: 2012-06-11
IETF LC End Date: 2012-06-12
IESG Telechat date: 2012-06-21

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

- The Abstract should not include references. Just delete "[RFC4601]".



- Perhaps this is a matter of personal taste... but Section 3.5.2 is 


devoted to describe the format of the PIM ECMP Redirect message. I think 


this is a section where you should describe the format, but you shouldn't 


write normative statements as for what to do with those fields. For 


example, I am referring to statements like:




      Address of desired upstream
      neighbor where the downstream receiver SHOULD redirect PIM
      Joins

      the receiving
      router of this message MUST use the "Interface ID", instead of
      "Neighbor Address", to identify the new RPF neighbor

      an ECMP
      Redirect message MUST be discarded if the "Interface ID" field...



I think all these sentences including a normative MUST, SHOULD, etc. 


should be written in Sections 3.1. or 3.2 (Procedures). This means that 


the format (current section 3.5) should be moved to a place prior to 3.1 


and 3.2, because the procedures needs to explain what to do with all 


these fields.




/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain