[pim] Re: [Last-Call] draft-ietf-pim-gaap-18 ietf last c all Tsvart review

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the replies. Both of these suggested changes look good to me.

Best,
Tommy

> On Aug 12, 2026, at 3:50 PM, Mike McBride <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tommy,
> 
> Thank you for the review, just now getting to all of the various reviews. Below is what we added which should satisfy your comments:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 5:15 PM Tommy Pauly via Datatracker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Document: draft-ietf-pim-gaap
>> Title: Group Address Allocation Protocol (GAAP)
>> Reviewer: Tommy Pauly
>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>> 
>> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
>> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
>> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
>> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
>> discussion list for information.
>> 
>> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
>> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you reply to or forward this review.
>> 
>> Thanks to the authors for a clear and detailed document. As an experimental
>> document (where the experiment is clear, with a plan to update and revise
>> based on experience), I don't see any major concerns.
>> 
>> Some transport-specific aspects that are worth clarification:
>> 
>> - I appreciate the callout in section 7 for UDP usage guidelines, with
>> fragmentation called out. The document says that fragmentation SHOULD
>> be avoided on multi-record claim packets, and provides one example, but
>> could benefit from a stronger recommendation of a size to fit within
>> (such as 1232 to fit within a 1280 byte IPv6 packet).
> 
> It now reads 
>     "A sender SHOULD keep a multi-record Claim message small enough to avoid IP
>     fragmentation on the path, and SHOULD limit the total UDP payload
>     of a Claim message to 1232 octets so that it fits within the
>     1280-octet IPv6 minimum MTU without fragmentation (this bounds
>     the number of records per message well below the maximum Record
>     Count of 255 when Group Names are long);"
>  
>> - What are the expected scales of number of nodes participating? When
>> nodes send out periodic claims, I could imagine this having higher levels
>> of traffic if there is a very high number of nodes. Likely this is
>> something that needs to be understood via experimentation, but if there
>> is anything that can be said now about potential scalability concerns
>> with large numbers of nodes, that would be useful to call out.
> 
> We added this:
> "The scalability of periodic Claim traffic has not yet been
> measured for deployments with large numbers of GAAP nodes
> claiming the same group name. Operators of such deployments
> should monitor Claim traffic volume and tune deployment-specific
> parameters as needed; this is expected to be an area of active
> investigation as operational experience with this experimental
> protocol accumulates."
> 
> thanks,
> mike
> -- 
> last-call mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

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