[pim] Re: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-p2m p-policy-ping-17: (with COMMENT)

HI Mike

Much appreciate your feedback.

This draft is a add on to RFC 9524 and draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy so the ready should be familiar with those 2 documents before implementing the ping draft.

As such I will leave a comment in the terminology section warning the reader that they should be familiar with the above mentioned 2 documents in version 17, I hope this addresses your over all concern.

Listing all these terminologies in every document might create confusion and I rather have a single source of truth rather then having multiple documents explaining these terms

Thanks
Hooman

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Bishop via Datatracker <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:38 PM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-17: (with COMMENT)


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.



Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-17: 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-p2mp-policy-ping/



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

Understandably, this document is fairly deep in the SR/MPLS stack and assumes a familiarity with many basic terms from that technology. Thank you for referencing sources for much of your terminology in Section 1.1. It would be helpful to spell out some of these initialisms (CP, TI, etc.), particularly as they are used in their expanded form later in the document. I also do not see the term LSP referenced here; perhaps a reference to RFC 3031 Sections 2.2 and
2.3 should be added to this section, possibly with a list of terms which are defined there and used in this document?



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