Carrying Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) in Any-Source Multicast (ASM) Mode Trees over Multipoint LDP (mLDP)
RFC 7442
Yes
No Objection
(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-11-03 for -02)
The SecDir review by Tero Kivinen resulted in a suggested additional text from the editor... From the security considerations point of view use of Shared Tree TLVs is no different than use of Source TLVs [rfc6826]. This will need to be added to the document before it advances.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-11-03 for -02)
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-11-25 for -02)
As mentioned by Carlos in his OPS-DIR review. Introduction: CMP: Overall, the introduction is a bit hard to parse. It contains a number of assumptions and expectations of the reader and notes. I suggest these paragraphs be taken out into a separate subsection of the Intro. The first mechanism, described in Section 3, is optional for implementations, but the second mechanism, described in Section 4, is mandatory for all implementations claiming conformance to this specification. CMP: This being a STD Track document, is “mandatory” the same as “REQUIRED” (see Section 1.1)? Is “optional” the same as “OPTIONAL”? CMP: A nit here as well, the pointers to the Sections have a wrong offset (should be S2 and S3). Nits: CMP: Sometimes the text talks about “Source Active Auto-Discovery” and others about “BGP Source Active Auto-Discovery”. See example below, I think it should normalize on one of them: 2.1 Originating Source Active Auto-Discovery Routes (Mechanism 1) .. 5 2.2 Receiving BGP Source Active Auto-Discovery Route by LSR ....... 6
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-11-24 for -02)
Thanks for the addition from Tero's review. Here is a link in case anyone is interested and didn't see it: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05170.html
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-11-25 for -02)
In the introduction, I am unable to parse this sentence: In a deployment scenario where the service provider has provisioned the network in such a way that the Rendezvous Point (RP) for a particular ASM group G is always between the receivers and the sources. I think maybe you want to say: Consider a deployment scenario where the service provider has provisioned the network in such a way that the Rendezvous Point (RP) for a particular ASM group G is always between the receivers and the sources.