Document: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy Title: Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy Reviewer: David Black Review result: Ready with Issues This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review. As a routing policy draft, this draft does not raise any transport-oriented issues, but I did notice one discrepancy that ought to be addressed. - Section 2 says: "An SR P2MP policy is a specialized form of an SR policy as defined in[RFC9256] ..." - Section 2.1 says: "A SR P2MP Policy is uniquely identified by the tuple <Root, Tree-ID>, where: ..." - RFC 9256 Section 2.1 says: "An SR Policy MUST be identified through the tuple <Headend, Color, Endpoint>." I don't understand how <Root, Tree-ID> is a "specialized form of" <Headend, Color, Endpoint> that satisfies the RFC 9256 "MUST" requirement quoted above. In particular, Color appears to be missing from <Root, Tree-ID>. I'm reading "specialized form of" as implying a "subtype of" relationship, which may be more restrictive than what was intended. I suggest adding a paragraph to the end of Section 2.1 (SR P2MP Policy Identification) that explains the relationship between those two types of identification tuples and how policies are uniquely identified in an environment that uses both RFC 9256 SR Policies and this draft's SR PMP Policies. -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
