Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07
review-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07-opsdir-lc-clarke-2024-09-24-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2024-10-01 | |
| Requested | 2024-09-17 | |
| Authors | Vengada Prasad Govindan , Stig Venaas | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-09-24 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -07
by Peter E. Yee
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Joe Clarke (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Joe Clarke |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/mm1TRS1u9KJduwUm4LGH0uCnyKI | |
| Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2024-09-24 |
review-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07-opsdir-lc-clarke-2024-09-24-00
I have been asked to review this draft on behalf of the OPS directorate. This draft updates RFC8059 to specify PIM Receiver RLOC Join/Prune attribute to connect multiple LISP sites when underlay IP multicast is used. Overall, I thought the document was clear, but I did find a few nitty issues. The biggest point of confusion for me was the mention of "oif-list" in Section 3.3. This is defined in RFC6381 (experimental) where they use OIF-list. I think at least an informative reference is needed for clarity of this term and the form "OIF-list" should be used. Other nits: Section 3.2: OLD: This field MUST be used only when the NEW: This field MUST only be used when then I think this form is a bit clearer with the normative MUST. Section 3.3: You have a duplicate "tree" there (i.e., "tree tree").