Subject: [Pals] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 18:01:24 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05: 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-vpls-pim-snooping/

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

Thank you for a useful document -- I have a few editorial comments which I
think will make the document more readable, and so even more useful...

Please also see the OpsDir comments (which also have some minor editorial
nits):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2017-05-10/

My comments:
S 1.  Introduction
O: .  Forwarding Information Base for a VPLS instance is  populated dynamically
by MAC address learning. P: . The  Forwarding Information Base (FIB) for a VPLS
instance is populated dynamically by MAC address learning. C: Was missing a
"The".  Also, might be worth unexpanding "Forwarding Information Base" (sorry,
so used to asking people to expand acronyms, feels odd to suggest the you also
include the acronym, but might be helpful for people who know the term FIB, but
not the expansion :-)).

O: "While this document is in the context of VPLS, the procedures apply  to
regular layer-2 switches interconnected by physical connections as well, albeit
this is outside of the scope of this document.  In that case, the PW related
concept/procedures are not applicable and that’s all." P: "These procedures
also apply to regular layer-2 switches interconnected by physical connections,
but further discussion is out of scope for this document. C: The original
sentence was clunky. I think that the proposed still covers the salient points,
but is easier to read. The "and that's all" in the original also seemed weird.

O: "Notice that traffic is always sent on ports that have point-to-point
connections to routers that are attached to a LAN on which there is a router."
C: Err...   "... routers that are attached to a LAN on which there is a
router." If the router is attached to a LAN, then there is a router on the LAN.
I'm presuming that you mean "routers that are attached to a LAN on which there
is a another router." or "at least one other router"? "If we had some eggs, we
could have eggs and bacon, if we had some bacon..." :-)

O: "Unless explicitly noted, the procedures in this document are used for
either PIM snooping or PIM proxying, and we will largely refer to PIM snooping
in this document." P: "We will use the term PIM snooping in this document; but,
unless explicitly noted, the procedures in this document apply equally to PIM
snooping and PIM proxying". C: I had to read the original a few times, I
*think* that my proposed is clearer, but might be wrong...

---

From: Olivier Dornon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 09:24:45 +0200

Hi Warren,

Thank you for the review, see my responses inline.

Olivier.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping/
Agreed.
> but is easier to read. The "and that's all" in the original also seemed weird.
I already rephrased this based on other comments. It now says :

"While this document is in the context of VPLS, the procedures also
   apply to regular layer-2 switches interconnected by physical
   connections, except that the PW related concept and procedures do
   not apply in that case."

> could have eggs and bacon, if we had some bacon..." :-)

You're right, I'll update it.

> *think* that my proposed is clearer, but might be wrong...

Indeed, your wording is better, I'll update.