Hi Thanks for your review. I addressed the nits in the latest version. I could maybe have added the callout you suggested, but I omitted that. I hope vendors/implementors will provide it though. Stig On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:30 PM Joe Clarke via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Joe Clarke > Review result: Ready > > I was asked to review this document on behalf of the ops directorate. This > document describes a new protocol to do PIM DR load balancing. In general, I > think this document is ready. I appreciate both the backwards compat and > operator considerations sections. In fact, as I read through this, I kept > thinking, "I hope they talk about legacy vs. new routers on the same shared > LAN". One thing that might be good to add is a callout to vendors/implementors > that they are explicit in which GDR for which group/source. Thinking with a > troubleshooting mind, this changes the paradigm in forwarding and knowing how > that behaves will be critical. > > I also found three really small nits: > > Section 5.2.1: > > s/ordinal number of router X/ordinal number of Router X/ > > === > > Section 5.4: > > s/permissable/permissible/ > > === > > Section 5.8: > > s/take part in an load-balancing/take part in load-balancing/ > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
