Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9436 <draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-04> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] We have some specific questions about the IANA text in the
document:

a) IANA noted the following about Table 1:

   Because we typically leave unassigned values unreferenced, we
   didn't include Table 1's the reference to this document for
   values 13.0-15.14.

We have thus removed the reference to this document for types 13.0-15.14
(Unassigned) to match the "PIM Message Types" registry at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml#message-types.


b) The "PIM Message Types" registry at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml#message-types
includes assignments for the following types/bits. Should these be included in Table 1? 

Note that draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16 and
draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-12 will move to AUTH48 in the next week or
two. 

type 2 (Register Stop), bit 0 (Packing Capability" - [RFC-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16]

type 5 (Assert), bit 0 (Packed) - [RFC-ietf-pim-assert-packing-12]

type 5 (Assert), bit 1 (Aggregated) - [RFC-ietf-pim-assert-packing-12]

type 13.0 (PIM Packed Null-Register) - [RFC-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16]

type 13.1 (PIM Packed Register-Stop) - [RFC-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16]


c) Should this text mention the bits that are already assigned (i.e., the bits
described in Sections 4.1-4.3)?

Original:
   This document updates the "PIM Message Types" registry to indicate
   which flag bits are defined for use by each of the PIM message types,
   and changes their registration status to Unassigned, as shown in
   Table 1.

Perhaps:
   This document updates the "PIM Message Types" registry to indicate
   which flag bits are defined for use by each of the PIM message types
   and changes their registration status to Unassigned except where the bits
   have already been specified, as shown in Table 1.  
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] While we understand the original document (RFC 8736) was published with some
of the text we are questioning below, the questions are aimed at making
the text as correct as possible. Please let us know if these updates are
incorrect or undesirable.

a) May we update this sentence to either change "currently" to "current" or to
remove "currently" altogether? Note that this sentence appears in both the
abstract and the introduction.

Original:
   This document updates RFC7761 and RFC3973 by defining the use of the
   currently Reserved field in the PIM common header.
   
Perhaps:
   This document updates RFC 7761 and RFC 3973 by defining the use of the
   current Reserved field in the PIM common header.
   
Or:
   This document updates RFC 7761 and RFC 3973 by defining the use of the
   Reserved field in the PIM common header.


b) Please review "currently reserved bits" in this sentence. Is this correct
now as the bits are not reserved but either assigned (per Sections 4.1-4.4) or
unassigned? Note that this sentence appears in both the abstract and the
introduction.

Original:
   This document
   further updates RFC7761 and RFC3973, along with RFC5015, RFC5059,
   RFC6754, and RFC8364, by specifying the use of the currently reserved
   bits for each PIM message.

Perhaps:
   This document
   further updates RFCs 7761 and 3973, along with RFCs 5015, 5059, 6754,
   and 8364, by specifying the use of the bits for
   each PIM message.
   

c) May we update this title to use "PIM Flooding Mechanism" rather than "PFM"?
PRM is not used elsewhere in the document, and "PIM Flooding Mechanism" is the
name used in the "PIM Message Types" registry for type 12.

Original:
   4.3.  Flag Bits for Type 12 (PFM)

Perhaps: 
     4.3.  Flag Bits for Type 12 (PIM Flooding Mechanism)


d) In this document, it seems that the capped "Flag Bits" is used for the name
of the field and the lowercase "flag bits" is used in general text. Please
review "Flag Bits" in this sentence. Should this read "Flag Bits field" or
"flag bits"? Or is the current okay?
       
Original:
   In Section 5, this document specifies the use of the Flag
   Bits for message types 13, 14, and 15 in order to extend the PIM type
   space.  
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/st/rv



On Aug 18, 2023, at 9:28 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/08/18

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436-xmldiff1.html

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9436

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9436 (draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-04)

Title            : PIM Message Type Space Extension and Reserved Bits
Author(s)        : S. Venaas, A. Retana
WG Chair(s)      : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride

Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston