PIM Group-to-Rendezvous-Point Mapping
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel) Yes
Comment (2010-12-31 for -)
Routing Area Directorate review by Dimitri Papadimitriou raises a few very minor editorial points that should be looked at together with any other comments and issues raised during IESG review. > Section 1: > > - "Each PIM-SM router may learn Group-to-RP mappings through > various mechanisms." which mechanisms ? ref's would be helpful > > - "It is critical that each router select the same 'RP' for a specific > multicast group address." why ? a short sentence would be helpful > - note this requirement applies to al routers in the same "domain" > > Section 4: > > - "A Group-to-RP mapping learned for PIM-BIDIR mode is preferred to > an entry learned for PIM-SM mode." > is this reason dictated by arbitrary criteria or protocol operation > criteria (dictated by RFC 5059) or other ? > > Section 5: > > - Add ref's to BSR and Auto-RP in sentence > "In this case, to support some specific applications, they might like to > learn Group-to-RP mappings dynamically using either BSR or Auto-RP > mechanism." > > - "This is not an issue for IPv6 Multicast address ranges." what "this" > refers to ? > > Section 6: > > - What's the input to this algorithm ? there is a need to describe the set > of information onto which this procedure applies (the output is implicit). > > - The description seems to mandate a sequential execution (from 1 to > 10) but this is not stated ahead in the Section 6. > > Section 9: > > - " The algorithm in this document MUST be used. " on all routers in > the domain? Please clarify. > > - "improve stability under misconfiguration" stability of what ? > > Section 11: > > - does the term "block" refers to disable or filter ? or left unspecified ?