Subject: [pim] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 07:42:50 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-09: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Mike McBride the shepherd's write-up including the section
about the WG consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

Does the use of BFD prevent the use of normal PIM detection? It is a little
unclear from the text and I hope that BFD comes on the top of normal PIM
detection mode.

-- Section 2.3 --
Please add "All received BFD Control packets that are
   demultiplexed to the session MUST be discarded if the received TTL or
   Hop Limit is not equal to 255." Copied from RFC 5881.

-- Section 4 --
The security section appears rather light to me as now any BFD security issues
can also impact PIM.

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 08:23:13 -0800

Hi Éric,
thank you for your kind words supporting this work. Please find my notes
in-lined after your comments under the GIM>> tag. Attached, please find the
diff highlighting the updates in the working version of the draft.

Regards,
Greg

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case/
GIM>> You're correct, BFD does not negate any of the PIM mechanisms,
including the loss of a neighbor.  I would be much obliged if you can
suggest any text update or addition to stress that.

>    Hop Limit is not equal to 255." Copied from RFC 5881.
 GIM>> Added.

> The security section appears rather light to me as now any BFD security
GIM>> Indeed. A reference to RFC 5881 has been added to the Security
Consideration section (working version).