Bing,
The controller section is meant to outline the requirements and guidelines for a controller to support SR P2MP policy, but not a formal specification of the controller function. However, it does specify some behaviors with MUST and SHOULD clauses.
I will fix the wording issues you pointed out in the next revision.
Thanks,
Rishabh.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 8:57 AM Bing Liu via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- pim@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to pim-leave@xxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
