Subject: [pim] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:53:55 -0800

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-07: 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-explicit-rpf-vector/

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

I support the publication of this document, but I do have two points I
would like you to consider...

1. The use of 2119 keywords in the Introduction are inappropriate. They
can easily be changed to non-normative words and the meaning will not be
lost.

2. While this approach is viable, and needed, in a subset of deployment
scenarios, it is also inappropriate for other scenarios. I think some
guidance on when to use, or not use, this option would be useful as an
addendum to the motivation provided in section 3.