Telechat Review of draft-ietf-pim-source-discovery-bsr-11
review-ietf-pim-source-discovery-bsr-11-rtgdir-telechat-dimitri-2018-01-30-00

Couldn't find the template for experiment drafts, but I think this kind of
documents deserve its specific template

Summary:

Points to be clarified are related to

1.the flooding boundary. The document refers to PIM domain defined in RFC 4601

" A domain in this context is a contiguous set of routers that all implement
PIM and are
   configured to operate within a common boundary."

And states " PFM messages are generally forwarded hop by hop to all PIM
routers."

what now defines a PIM domain: the PFM flooding boundary or the PIM execution
domain.

2. Modified TLV (statement " Some TLVs may be omitted or modified in the
forwarded message." - example a boundary router changes the Src Address in the
GSH TLV to its own address - is that allowed/expected ? actually the document
doesn't explain or justify the need to "modify" TLV in forwarded messages.

3. Section 4.2 states

   "In order to meet the timing requirements, sending of the message may
   have to be delayed a small amount of time."

   Quantify "small amount of time"

Editorial:

First paragraph first sentence: add reference to PIM-SM

Second paragraph fifth sentence: add reference to SSM

Last paragraph

o) Refers to "parameters" please differentiate so-called architectural
constants from configurable parameters. Cf.RFC 2328 for a good example.

o) Suggest to write last paragraph as numbered points to facilitate their
clearing as more experience from the field is being obtained.

Dimitri