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

[Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>]

Hello Alvaro,

Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly. All of our questions have been addressed.

Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.

Updated XML file:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436.xml

Updated output files:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436.pdf

Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436-auth48diff.html

Diff files showing all changes:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9436-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)

Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. 

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9436

Thank you,

RFC Editor/st

> On Aug 21, 2023, at 3:29 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On August 18, 2023 at 12:32:15 PM, [e-mail] ([e-mail]) wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Thanks for the help in editing this document!
> 
>> 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fpim-parameters%2Fpim-parameters.xhtml%23message-types&data=05%7C01%7Calvaro.retana%40futurewei.com%7Cb34cd09b5dbc47f3105508dba008ac39%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638279731353027936%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=I3dyFu8sFJpfger0VBonsfwo8NOXqHr9sFqhNyrauUc%3D&reserved=0. 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Yes, that’s fine.
> 
> 
>> b) The "PIM Message Types" registry at 
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fpim-parameters%2Fpim-parameters.xhtml%23message-types&data=05%7C01%7Calvaro.retana%40futurewei.com%7Cb34cd09b5dbc47f3105508dba008ac39%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638279731353027936%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=I3dyFu8sFJpfger0VBonsfwo8NOXqHr9sFqhNyrauUc%3D&reserved=0 
>> includes assignments for the following types/bits. Should these be included in Table 1? 
> No, they should not.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.  
>> --> 
> Yes, that looks good.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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. 
> Removing “currently” sounds better to me.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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. 
> Changing it makes sense to me.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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) 
> Yes, that’s fine.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.  
>> --> 
> Well….  
> A couple of paragraphs above (second paragraph in the Introduction) we wrote this:  "This document refers to the bits in the Reserved field of the common PIM header [RFC7761] as "PIM message type Flag Bits" or, simply, "Flag Bits”…”  But we also wrote (in Section 3): "This document updates the definition of the Reserved field and refers to that field as "PIM message type Flag Bits" or, simply, "Flag Bits”.”  :-(
> We didn't use "PIM message type Flag Bits” anywhere else.
> The text in Section 3 should be used in the Introduction as “Flag Bits” refers to the field (not the bits).
> 
> To your question.  In the sentence above please use “Flag Bits field”.
>    
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
>> Style Guide <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C01%7Calvaro.retana%40futurewei.com%7Cb34cd09b5dbc47f3105508dba008ac39%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638279731353027936%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bMzHqh2D%2Bf0iF0yr%2Fb266KIpVS1WE%2BoDSQgO6cE3J2k%3D&reserved=0> 
>> 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. 
>> --> 
> I didn’t find anything else to be considered.
> 
> Thanks!!
> 
> Alvaro.