PIM Flooding Mechanism (PFM) and Source Discovery (SD)
RFC 8364

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2018-01-23 for -08)
No email
send info
Thanks for explaining why this is experimental in section 1.

- 3.2: "When forwarding a message, a router MUST NOT send it out an interface
   that is an outgoing boundary, including bidirectional boundary, for
   all PFM messages.  If an interface is an outgoing boundary for
   certain TLVs, the message MUST NOT be sent out the interface if it is
   a boundary for all the TLVs in the message. "

I found this hard to parse. Also, it seems like the first MUST NOT is fully implied by the second.

-

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2018-01-23 for -08)
No email
send info
It would be good to explain when/under which conditions this experiment will be successful.
ex: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6614#section-1.3

Regards, Benoit

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2018-01-24 for -08)
No email
send info
Thanks to Joel Jaeggli for the OpsDir review.

I don't really have anything to add, other than thanks for the explanation of why this is experimental - clearly stating the limitations, concerns and unknowns is really helpful.

(Mirja Kühlewind) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2018-02-01)
No email
send info
Big THANKS to Stig and David for adressing my discuss and the tsv-art review in the first place, as well as the extremely productive and very pleasent discussion and quick and clean resolution!

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2018-01-24 for -08)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing the SecDir review.

(Adam Roach) No Objection