IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-14
review-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-14-rtgdir-lc-dunbar-2025-07-30-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 22)
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 Rishabh Parekh (editor) , Daniel Voyer , Clarence Filsfils , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
I-D last updated 2025-10-07 (Latest revision 2025-09-04)
Completed reviews Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Bing Liu (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -13 by Corey Bonnell (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -13 by David L. Black (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/91DL2iYkX3cjHvQ2Ott3rlqVvks
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 22)
Result Has nits
Completed 2025-07-30
review-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-14-rtgdir-lc-dunbar-2025-07-30-01
Summary: This document provides a well-structured and technically sound
specification for SR P2MP Policies.

Questions:
The document does not describe inter-domain or multi-controller scenarios.
- Are SR P2MP Policies scoped to a single domain?
- How are overlapping Tree-IDs managed across controllers or root nodes?
- What happens if a controller fails to install all Replication Segments?

NITS :
Abstract: "Candidate Paths and and how P2MP trees..." -> Duplicate “and”.
Section 1: "instantiate a P2MP tree instance in the SR domain..." ->  Should be
“instantiates” Section 2.3: “An SR P2MP Policy can has one or more CPs…” ->
Typo: should be “can have.” Section 4.4: “Some example of these mechanisms are
PCEP, BGP and NetConf.” ->  Should be “examples”

Best Regards, Linda Dunbar