[pim] Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-p2m p-policy-ping-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Eric

Thanks for your comments and my apologies for missing this

Inline HB>

Thanks
Hooman


-----Original Message-----
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 10:19 AM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-16: (with DISCUSS and 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.



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.

HB> agreed and has been addressed in the latest version (version 23)

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


## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Title

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

HB> has been addressed thank you!

### Section 1

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

HB> this section has been reworked in version 23 please have a read and see if it addresses your concern.

### 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.`

HB> I think this has been addressed.

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

HB> thanks added "MPLS packets"

### Section 5

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

HB> addressed thank you!

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