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

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 15:06:17 -0700

Adam Roach 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that the upcoming change to move from RFC 4601 to RFC 7761
makes section 2.3.3 no longer relevant. I presume it will be removed?

Editorial nit: section 2.4.1 uses the abbreviation "J/P" without defining it.
Suggest expanding.

---

From: Olivier Dornon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:47:29 +0200

Adam,

Thanks for your comments, please see in-line for my replies.

Olivier.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping/

I have decided to keep the section for clarity, but of course I have 
rephrased it to explain the removal of (*,*,RP) states by RFC7761.

> Editorial nit: section 2.4.1 uses the abbreviation "J/P" without defining it.

Agreed, will be updated.