| Hi Stig,
Closing the loop on this…your responses answer all my questions, I have no issues with the document now, which I see has been approved for publication :-)
Apologies for the delay in my response…holiday season and all that.
Regards Ben
HiThanks a lot for the good review with a lot of comments. I believeI've addressed them in the new version. Please see inline for furthercomments.On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:59 AM Ben Niven-Jenkins via Datatracker<noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review result: Has Issues
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-pim-drlb-13.txt
Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review Date: 5th November 2019
IETF LC End Date: 7th November 2019
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.
Comments: The document is well written and easy to understand.
Thanks.Major Issues: No major issues found.
Minor Issues:
1) Section 4.1 says:
“To become a GDR Candidate, a router must have the same DR priority and run the
same GDR election Hash Algorithm as the DR on the LAN.”
and
“Furthermore, assume router R1 wins the PIM DR election, R1 and R2 run the same
Hash Algorithm for GDR election, while R3 runs a different one.”
I think it would be clearer if you said “support”/“supports” (or maybe
“advertise”/“advertises”) rather than “run”/“runs”. As I think what you are
trying to say is if a router has the same DR priority as the DR it is only a
GDR candidate if it also supports the same hash algorithm as advertised by the
DR.
Fixed.2) In section 5.3.1 the PIM DR Load Balancing Capability (DRLB-Cap) Hello
Option only contains a single value for Hash Algorithm. How is transition
between different hash algorithm expected to be achieved?
It is not clear that we will define other algorithms. If we do, Ithink it might be sufficient that the administrator manuallyconfigures the candidates with the preferred algorithm. We may come upwith an election scheme later once we have additional algorithmsthough.Does a router that supports multiple hash algorithms include multiple DRLB-Cap
Hello Options each containing a different hash algorithm and the DR selects the
hash algorithm it prefers (or is configured to use)?
If so, then it might be worth explicitly mentioning that in the document.
In pim we only use each option at most once in the hello, but I'veadded a comment saying at most once.3) Section 5.3 says “The DRLB-List Hello Option consists of three Hash Masks as
defined above and also a sorted list of GDR Candidate addresses on the LAN.”
Section 5.3.2 says “All addresses MUST be in the same address family as the PIM
Hello IP header. It is RECOMMENDED that the addresses are sorted in descending
order.”
Section 5.3 implies (without explicitly stating it) that GDR Candidate
addresses MUST be sorted, but section 5.3.2 states that sorting is only
RECOMMENDED.
Maybe remove any possibility of ambiguity by rewording Section 5.3 to something
like “The DRLB-List Hello Option consists of three Hash Masks as defined above
and also a list of GDR Candidate addresses on the LAN. It is RECOMMENDED that
the GDR Candidate addresses are sorted in descending order.”
I've tried to clarify this now. I added that it is recommended thatfirst time I mention a sorted list. Also changed RECOMMENDED torecommended, as things will work just fine either way. I also addedtext explaining why it is a good idea to sort them.Nits:
Section 3 says “The extension specified in this document applies to PIM-SM when
they act as last hop routers (there are directly connected receivers).”
Do you mean “applies to PIM-SM DRs”? Otherwise who is the “they” referring to
in that sentence?
Good catch.Section 3 says “This is because the source tree is built using the IP address
of the sender, not the IP address of the PIM DR that sends the registers
towards the RP.”
Do you mean “registration” instead of “registers”?
There are PIM register messages. It is a specific message type. I added "PIM".Thanks,Stig
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
