Hi Ben, Sorry for not replying sooner. I thought I had addressed your comments, but I just submitted the -07 revision that did it.
Thanks a lot for your review and comments! Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only -----Original Message----- From: rtg-dir <rtg-dir-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ben Niven-Jenkins via Datatracker Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 4:22 PM To: rtg-...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast....@ietf.org Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-05 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins Review result: Has Nits Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ab2b0dOJX9VHnzuNRC9o0Oz8oysWKP25V5pcXuG5xIczUGhjSKTqaFw9BujKzroDP9pIlwItUkBSE7w$ The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ab2b0dOJX9VHnzuNRC9o0Oz8oysWKP25V5pcXuG5xIczUGhjSKTqaFw9BujKzroDP9pIlwItHZSqjyQ$ Document: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-05.txt Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins Review Date: 10 November 2023 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. Comments: The document is well written and easy to read and understand. Nits: Section 1.2.4 - “For unlabeled (x,g) unidirectional trees, the upstream peer MAY prefer LAN interfaces to send traffic, since multiple downstream peers may be reached simultaneously, or it may make a decision based on local policy, e.g., for load balancing purpose.” I do not understand why the first MAY is capitalised. Is this a mistake and it should be in lowercase like the other instances of may in that sentence? Section 1.2.5 - “PIM and BGP MUST not be used simultaneously between two neighbors for multicast purpose, and routers connected to the same LAN MUST be transitioned during the same maintenance window.” I think the “MUST not” should be “MUST NOT”? Thanks Ben _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
