[pim] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-sr-p 2mp-policy-16: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-16: No Objection

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-sr-p2mp-policy/



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


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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below 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 detailed 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

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 1

Please expand "P2MP" in the introduction as well as the abstract is stand-alone.

The "bud" considerations should probably be in the terminology section.

Unsure whether a mix of SR-MPLS & SRv6 is specified here as the following
sentence is a little ambiguous `enabling efficient packet replication within an
SR domain.`.

### Section 1.1

In `construct a P2MP Tree instances` please use singular or plural form ;-)

### Section 2.1

Should there be a reference for `Color of SR Policy identifier` ?

Assuming that P2MP is mainly for multicast traffic, I am a little surprised not
to see the mcast group in the tuple. But, I may have missed the point of P2MP.

Also, why using `tuple` rather than "pair" (this is cosmetic though).

### Section 3.3

As this is a SR-MPLS specific section, should there be a SRv6 specific section
as well ?

### Section 4.1

What is `SRLG` ? Please expand and perhaps add an informative reference.

### Section 4.5.1

Should there be informative references for the protection mechanisms ?

### Section 6

Unsure whether the paragraphs after the first one are useful.

### Section 9.2

While not critical, it is highly unusual to refer to an individual expired
draft such as draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-illustration (especially when
used in the appendix).

### Appendix A

Please expand `PSP` and `USD` (plus add references ?).

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate
SVG graphics. It is worth a try especially if the I-D uses the Kramdown file
format ;-)



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