Subject: [pim] Comments on draft-liu-pim-assert-packing

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:51:27 -0700

Hi

I think this is a good idea, but I have some comments.

I don't think the use case section is very useful. It doesn't matter
whether it is video, financial etc. It might be better to talk about
topologies where asserts are likely to happen, but I'm not sure if
even that is needed.

The capability option announces a single capability type. What should
a router that supports both announce? I would suggest to simplify and
only have one format.

Regarding packing format. I think the format in first part of 4.3 is
good. I don't understand why you need the second format with both RP
address and source addresses. If you compare with PIM SM RFC, there is
no RP address included in asserts even for a (*,G) assert.

Regarding the pim message type. I think you should use type sub-type
format, see draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits and
draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing. We need this to not use up the
pim type space too quickly.

Stig