Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-10-24
Requested 2016-10-13
Authors Jesus Arango, Stig Venaas, Isidor Kouvelas, Dino Farinacci
Draft last updated 2016-12-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Lucy Yong (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Brian Weis (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Lucy Yong
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05-genart-lc-yong-2016-12-05
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Not Ready
Review completed: 2016-12-05


Send again.  fix some template info.

From: Lucy yong
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:59 PM
To: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team; ''
Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05

     PIM Join Attributes for LISP environments.

Reviewer: Lucy Yong

Review Date: 17-Oct-2016

IETF LC End Date: 24-Oct-2016

IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This document specifies two new PIM join/prune attributes for facilitating PIM mcast transports across LISP sites. Some issues need to be considered prior to publishing.

Major issues:

the draft assumes that PIM works within individual LISP sites but PIM mcast transport may not be supported among LISP sites. However the mechanism itself does not enforce a unique (unicast or mcast) underlay transport among LISP sites. Could some ETRs request unicast transport, other request multicast transport? The mechanism requires all LISP xTRs to run PIM protocol, right?

PIM join/prune msg are designed for PIM protocol. These two attributes are specifically designed for LISP purpose. Any concern here? From PIM perspective, they are optional attributes; are they "MUST" attributes for LISP (mcast)?

Minor issues: the draft uses many PIM and LISP terms without any explanation. It is hard for a reader to read it without knowledge of PIM and LISP protocol and terms.

It is not clear if Receiver RLOC attribute only applies to unicast transport or both unicast/mcast transport. Need to clarify.

Backward compatibility, without these two attributes in a join/prune msg from a LISP ETR, what that mean?

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 1: "to be notified should the root of the
   distribution tree move to another site."  Should "should" be "that"?

Section 5: several 'must' should be "MUST"