[Last-Call] Re: [pim] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07

["Vengada Prasad Govindan \(venggovi\)" <venggovi=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter,

Thanks for your clarifications, please see inline with GVP2> I will submit -08 with the comments received so far.

Thanks

Prasad 

---

From: Peter Yee <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 8:08 PM
To: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) <venggovi@xxxxxxxxx>; secdir@xxxxxxxx <secdir@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp.all@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>; pim@xxxxxxxx <pim@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pim] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07

 

Prasad,

 

My responses are below, prefixed with PEY1>

 

Thank you so much for addressing my comments.

 

                                Kind regards,

                                -Peter

 

On 9/26/24, 12:26 AM, "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" <venggovi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

Sincere thanks to Peter for comments, please see responses below with GVP1> Most comments are fixed. Only two require some clarifications.

Thanks

Prasad

 

---

From: Peter Yee via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 6:51 AM
To: secdir@xxxxxxxx <secdir@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp.all@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>; pim@xxxxxxxx <pim@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [pim] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07

Page 2, section 1, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: it might be better to point at
RFC 9300 for the definitions rather than RFC 6831. This is what was done on the
very next page, so rather than confusing the reader, just point to one place.
GVP1> Both RFC9300 and RFC6831 maybe needed. Can you please let us know if this is fine? 

PEY1> It’s fine by me if you feel the need to do so. I note that you point to RFC 6831 for definitions of EID and RLOC. Then you point to RFC 9300 for those same definitions (and more) a few paragraphs later. The definitions in those two documents are not identical, although they may be close enough that there’s no confusion using them interchangeably.

GVP2> Thanks,
Page 3, section 2.1, 2nd sentence: bracket “e.g.” in commas.
GVP1> Can you please clarify this ? I am not sure I understand what is asked for

You should end up with: …two or more flows, e.g., (root-RLOC, G-u1)…

GVP2> Fixed this.

-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx