I reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Security Area
Directors.  Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-07
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2021-09-21
IETF LC End Date: 2021-09-28
IESG Telechat date: Unknown


Summary: Has Issues


Major Concerns:  None


Minor Concerns:

General: All of the field names in this document use camel case, except
one.  I think the document would be easier to read if My Discriminator
were to use the same convention.  Also, HeadDiscriminator would be
more descriptive.

Section 2.1 says:

   The head MUST include the BFD Discriminator option in its Hello
   messages.

This MUST statement cold me much more complete:

   The head MUST include the BFD Discriminator option in its Hello
   messages, and it MUST include a 4-byte My Discriminator with a
   value other than zero.

Section 2.3: s/must set/MUST set/


Nits:

Section 1, para 1 could be more clear and more forceful.  I suggest:

   Faster convergence in the control plane minimizes the periods of
   traffic blackholing, transient routing loops, and other situations
   that may negatively affect service data flow.  Faster convergence
   in the control plane is beneficial to unicast and multicast routing
   protocols.

Section 1, para 2: s/DR is to act on behalf/DR acts on behalf/

Section 1, para 3: The first sentence is very unclear.  I cannot offer
an improvement because it is too hard to parse.

Section 1, para 3: s/networks precisely/networks, and it precisely/

Section 1.1.1: s/familiarity/Familiarity/