Subject: [Pals] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 03:48:33 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Here is Sarah's OPS DIR review. Her Why (Do I care?) comment resonates with me:
I could not find the information.

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF
drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD
reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

        I think the document is almost ready to go. I don't have technical
        issue with the content, but I think the document reads in parts like
        several authors cut/paste/contributed, and the document doesn't flow
        well in spots. Perhaps this is a personal choice, but I believe that
        documents that read with some amount of approachability with respect to
        all interested readers, and not just hard core
        whatever-the-protocol-is-fanatics, benefits our community for the
        better. Last, maybe it's the product manager in me, and not the
        development engineer, but why do I care? Is this just to add LDP as
        another mechanism for establishing the PW? Is there some deficit that's
        being addressed by LDP that existing mechanisms don't solve? This isn't
        addressed in a way that resonates in the document, for me. Last, while
        super picky, the acronym "PSN" was used in the abstract before being
        properly introduced. This was mostly made more noticeable by the fact
        that the rest of the draft does a fantastic job of introducing the
        terms before using the acronym.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:06:50 +0100

On 31/08/2017 11:48, Benoit Claise wrote:
>          development engineer, but why do I care?

Previously the only way to set up a p2mp PW was static configuration. 
This defines how to do
the setup via LDP which is the normal signalling protocol used for PWs.

>          Is this just to add LDP as
>          another mechanism for establishing the PW?

It is the first signalled method for a true P2MP PW.

> Is there some deficit that's
>          being addressed by LDP that existing mechanisms don't solve?

Yes, this is a signalled method.

> This isn't
>          addressed in a way that resonates in the document, for me.

> Last, while

That is easily fixed and the RFC Editor would normally do it 
automatically. For the reader
this would not normally be their first text on the subject and so they 
would normally
already be familiar with the term.

Best regards

Stewart

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:47:34 +0200

Stewart,

Some more sentences with your feedback would improve the draft IMO.

Regards, B.
>> Please refer to 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> .