Document: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy Title: Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy Reviewer: Bing Liu Review result: Has Nits Hi Dear authors, I'm assigned to review draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy by OPSDir. General status: Ready with Nits I read the latest 15 version, and I believe it is ready with a couple of nits as the following. - Section 4.2. Controller Functions I find this section is a bit ambiguous in general. It reads like to specify some minimal requirements for the controllers, but there are no “MUST” key words. If it is some considerations, then it seems a bit unnecessary since these are quite apparent requirements. I think the real essential thing is the “SR P2MP tree” capability awareness, both for the nodes and the controllers. If this document wants to address this issue, I think there needs to be a bit more comprehensive description. If not, simply make it an assumption/requirement is also ok. Small wording issues: - Some sections uses “forwarding plane”, while some uses “dataplane”. Maybe it’s better to use only one. Btw, is “dataplane” a conventional word? I guess “data plane” might be more formal usage (published RFCs seem to use it). - Section 4.3: there are two “period” at the end of the first paragraph. -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
