IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-14
review-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-14-rtgdir-lc-dunbar-2025-07-30-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 25) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-08-01 | |
| Requested | 2025-07-04 | |
| Requested by | Gunter Van de Velde | |
| Authors | Hooman Bidgoli , Zafar Ali , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Anuj Budhiraja , Daniel Voyer | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-10-14 (Latest revision 2025-10-09) | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -11
by Linda Dunbar
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Linda Dunbar (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -16 by Wes Hardaker (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Linda Dunbar |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/K9aJhTCqKUzqk8ZPDA2iUAiE_dA | |
| Reviewed revision | 14 (document currently at 25) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2025-07-30 |
review-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-14-rtgdir-lc-dunbar-2025-07-30-00
Summary: This document is technically solid and aligns well with existing MPLS and SR OAM mechanisms. Some Nits though: Abstract: “via a controller-based mechanisms” → remove plural: “via a controller-based mechanism” Section 3.1: “The appropriate respond is sent back…” → should be: “The appropriate response is sent back…” Section 6 (Security): “Overall, the security needs for P2MP policy ping is same as [RFC8029].” — grammatical fix: “...are the same as...” Section 5 (IANA): “This sub-type value is assigned from the standards Action of range...” — is it better with : “...from the Standards Action range of ...” The following sentence is difficult to follow (Section 3.1.3): "For example, when a P2MP Policy Ping or Traceroute packet enters an Unicast SR domain, it MUST be processed on the two interconnecting Replication Segments, based on the Replication SID and its TTL value.". Best Regards, Linda Dunbar