PIM Flooding Mechanism (PFM) and Source Discovery (SD)
RFC 8364
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
Warren Kumari No Objection
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.
(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
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; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
Thanks for addressing the SecDir review.
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
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!
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection