Subject: [pim] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-drlb-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 14:49:30 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-drlb-13: 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-pim-drlb/

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

Some very minor comments:

Please expand “PIM-SM” on first use in both the Abstract and the Introduction.

   This allows
   the forwarding of multicast packets to be restricted only to segments
   leading to receivers who have indicated their interest in multicast
   groups using either IGMP or MLD.

Nit: Let’s not personify our devices: please change “who” to “that”.
   However, if there was a way that allowed multiple routers to
   forward to the LAN for different groups, failure of one of the

Nit: “if there were a way”, subjunctive mood with a conditional.

— Section 3 —

   The extension specified in this document applies to PIM-SM when they
   act as last hop routers (there are directly connected receivers).

I can’t find the antecedent to “they”; what is it?  It looks like it’s
“PIM-SM”, but that’s not something that can be “they”, is it?  Maybe you mean
to say “PIM-SM routers”?

— Section 4 —

   For each multicast flow, that is, (*,G) for ASM and (S,G) for SSM, a
   Hash Algorithm is used to select one of the routers to be the GDR.

“Hash Algorithm” might do well to include a forward reference to Section 5.1.