Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-light-08
review-ietf-pim-light-08-genart-lc-knodel-2024-10-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-light
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-10-18
Requested 2024-10-04
Authors Hooman Bidgoli , Stig Venaas , Mankamana Prasad Mishra , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Mike McBride
I-D last updated 2024-10-22
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Mallory Knodel (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Susan Hares (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -08 by Michael Tüxen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mallory Knodel
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-light by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/p2BISjCFHlh4lOiancWm2pOfiVw
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-10-22
review-ietf-pim-light-08-genart-lc-knodel-2024-10-22-00
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

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-light-??
Reviewer: Mallory Knodel
Review Date: 2024-10-22
IETF LC End Date: 2024-10-18
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Thanks very much for this concise draft on PIM Light.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: See nits for readability.

Nits/editorial comments: My comments are only focused on the readability of
this document. Here are some fixes:

 * intro: include section number, “as explained further in this document”

 * intro: expand acronym on first use (it’s in section 2.1 instead, “PIM-SM
 protocol including PIM-SSM as per”

 * section 3, perhaps indicate that the following subsections define those very
 specific scenarios and whether there could be more or not by saying “only”,
 “Due to these constraints, a PLI should be deployed in very specific
 scenarios.”

 * 3.2: spf has not yet been expanded in this document, “to the source using
 SPF with post-processing as described in”

 * 3.4: bfd has not yet been expanded in this document, “PIM Light is
 configured on can be protected via BFD or similar technology”