Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis-06: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis-06 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. As I am far from being a multicast expert, I must write that I was unable to do a deep review of the document. Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Please note that Dave Thaler is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request) and you may want to consider this int-dir review as well when it will be available (no need to wait for it though): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis/reviewrequest/24904/ I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues. ## DISCUSS (blocking) As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise. ### Obsoleted References As noted by the id-nitsv3 tool, the references RFC 3376 and RFC 3810 have been obsoleted. Should the reference section be updated ? ### Section 4 `they use IGMP` humm what about IPv6 MLD ? Please also use "IGMP/MLD" or a similar construct. Possibly applicable to other places in the draft. Section 7 is better to this respect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Abstract s/This document describes/This document *specifies*/ as it is a PS. ### Section 1 s/This specification will address/This specification *addresses*/ ? s/The approach proposed in this specification/The approach *of this specification* is/ ? ### Section 12 Should it be clear that mtrace does not work in this setup ? _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
