Subject: [bess] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-multicast-damping-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 07:19:12 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-multicast-damping-04: 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-bess-multicast-damping/

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

Some questions from Bert, part of the OPS directorate review.

Question(s):
- top of page 11:

         The choice to implement damping based on BGP routes or the
procedures described in Section 5.1, is
         up to the    implementor, but at least one of the two MUST be
implemented. In the perspective of
         allowing damping to be done on RRs and ASBRs, implementing the
BGP approach is recommended.

  Did you mean RECOMMENDED uppercase, or is the lower case intentional?
  I would think uppercase because in setion 7.1 it is stated/claimed
that
  these procedures can be enabled on ASBRs and Route Reflectors.

  And in order to make this claim, the better be implemented, no?

- section 7.3 2nd para:      This section proposes default and maximum
values, conservative so as to not significantly impact network
dimentioning but still prevent I tried to find the work "dimentioning".
But difficult to find. Does it mean the same as "domensioning"? From some
description I get that  impression, but I am not sure. Maybe it is just
my poor command of English that causes me troubles here?

nits: - page 3 towards bottom:

   of C-multicast routes".  This specification provides appropriate
   detail on how to implement this approach and how to provide control
   to the operator, and for this reason, in an update to [RFC6514].

   I guess s/in/is/ ?