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”