Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-05
review-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-05-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2024-09-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2024-09-23
Requested 2024-09-09
Requested by Gunter Van de Velde
Authors Yisong Liu , Mike McBride , Zheng Zhang , Jingrong Xie , Changwang Lin
I-D last updated 2024-09-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Susan Hares (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jürgen Schönwälder
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/oxU5dx3VmuU2tLUKtDxOdyMxzq0
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-09-23
review-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-05-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2024-09-23-00
I have reviewed draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-05.txt. I am not deep into
multicast routing and hence I look at the document from a general
operational perspective.

I found the document to be well written, the example topology to
outline the limitations of existing approaches is much appreciated.

How is this extension deployed? Can it be deployed incrementally or do
all multicast routers have to understand the RPF Vector Attributes in
the PIM Join packet to work properly? And are there any further
recommendations	about debugging	operational or deployment errors, are
there procedures to verify that the calculated alternative routes or
is this	no different than with other fast multicast reroute
mechanisms?

Editorial nits:

- The acronym SID is used well before it is introduced on page 8,
  please introduce the acronyms where they are first used.