> On Dec 11, 2019, at 18:00, Stig Venaas <stig@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Thanks, Stig. I wouldn’t be so optimistic of vendors ;-). Speaking as someone that did support for many years, having some documentation to make troubleshooting more deterministic would be appreciated. Joe > > 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
