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

[Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>]

Hello Stig and Alvaro,

Stig, we have  marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9436).

Alvaro, thank you for clarifying! We believe we updated as you intend, but please review the Introduction and Section 3 in the diff file to confirm.

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 22, 2023, at 5:56 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On August 22, 2023 at 5:24:58 PM, Sarah Tarrant ([e-mail]) wrote:
> 
> Sarah:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> ...
>> 
>> 
>> >> 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”. 
> Sorry I wasn’t clear on this point.
> The text mentioned above, in the Introduction and in Section 3, are inconsistent.  They should both be updated to read: “This document updates the definition of the Reserved field and refers to it as the "Flag Bits field”…”
> Thanks!
> Alvaro.