[pim] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-poli cy-ping-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-16: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-16
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education).

Special thanks to Mike McBride for the shepherd's concise write-up including
the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/,
a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I
really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be
convinced otherwise.

### Section 3.2.1.1

The field 'Reserved' is not specified, please use the usual "MUST be set to 0
on transmission and ignored on reception". It is important for potential
extensions.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Title

Should 'MPLS' be included in the title as opposed to "SRv6" ?

### Section 1

The 1st paragraph describes protocols not defined in this I-D. Please add one
or more informational references.

### Section 3.1

As SRv6 was already stated 'out-of-scope' in section 1, there is no need for
`Future documents will extend support for Replication Segments using SRv6
encapsulation.`

Please be specific about the TTL ? Is it the MPLS header field or the IP header
field ?

### Section 5

Please use a informational reference URI to the specific IANA registry.



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