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

From: John Scudder via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:24:12 -0800

John Scudder 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Martin’s discuss position, and have one other nit. The first sentence
in the below is very difficult to parse:

   If a PIM-SM router is configured to monitor the head by using p2mp
   BFD, referred to through this document as 'tail', receives a PIM-
   Hello packet with the BFD Discriminator PIM Hello option, the tail
   MAY create a p2mp BFD session of type MultipointTail, as defined in
   [RFC8562].

Suggested rewrite: “A PIM-SM router that is configured to monitor the head by
using p2mp BFD is referred to throughout this document as a “tail”. When such a
tail receives a PIM-Hello…”

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:55:51 -0800

Hi John,
thank you for the review and suggested text. I've updated the draft and the
attached diff now includes that change.

Regards,
Greg