Subject: [pim] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 04:44:04 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-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-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp/

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

One minor but I think important comment (I don't think this justifies a
discuss but I would really like to see that changed or at least
discussed):

For me as a 'transport person' using the plain term '(underlaying)
transport' is really confusing because it's very unspecific. In section
4.1. you actually call it the 'type of transport' and later on you talk
about the mode of transport, but in general you just talk about the
transport which is also reflected in the name of the attribute. In
draft-ietf-taps-transports we classify this transport feature as part of
addressing. I guess that might not be completely appropriate for your
case. However, I would like to see the terminology here cleaned up to not
only talk about '(underlaying) transport' but choose a more specific
term. Given that you only have a 0 or 1 as choices in the attribute, I
would even recommend to call this attribute 'Unicast Replication' or
something like this instead of just 'Transport'.

One other minor comment: 
There are many abbreviations that are not spelled out once and make the
reading slightly harder, e.g. ITR and ETR and so on