[pim] Re: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-14 ietf last call Rt gdir review

Version 15 is uploaded addressing Linda’s comments

Thanks again

Regards
Hooman

From: Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 9:39 PM
To: Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]>; Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-14 ietf last call Rtgdir review

Acknowledged will fix the grammar issues with the ping draft

Thanks
Hooman

From: Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 7:41 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-14 ietf last call Rtgdir review


CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.


Linda,
I think you have mistakenly sent review comments for draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping to the authors of draft-ietf-pim-sr-policy.

Rishabh



On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 3:43 PM Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy
Title: Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Has Nits

Summary: This document is technically solid and aligns well with existing MPLS
and SR OAM mechanisms.

Some Nits though:

Abstract: “via a controller-based mechanisms” → remove plural: “via a
controller-based mechanism”

Section 3.1: “The appropriate respond is sent back…” → should be: “The
appropriate response is sent back…”

Section 6 (Security): “Overall, the security needs for P2MP policy ping is same
as [RFC8029].”  — grammatical fix: “...are the same as...”

Section 5 (IANA): “This sub-type value is assigned from the standards Action of
range...”   — is it better with : “...from the Standards Action range of ...”

The following sentence is difficult to follow (Section 3.1.3):
"For example, when a P2MP Policy Ping or Traceroute packet enters an Unicast SR
domain, it MUST be processed on the two interconnecting Replication Segments,
based on the Replication SID and its TTL value.".

Best Regards, Linda Dunbar


_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]