Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9465 <draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16> for your review

["Ananya Gopal (ananygop)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello RFC editors,

The attached document has responses to all your comments. Thanks for your careful review.

Thanks,
Ananya

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:06 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram Sundaram (ramaksun) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Ananya Gopal (ananygop) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9465 <draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16> for your review
Authors,

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


1) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we updated "multiple Multicast source and group information"
as follows to improve readability. Please let us know any objections.

Original:
   This document defines a standard to send multiple Multicast source
   and group information in a single PIM message.

Updated:
   This document defines a standard to send information about multiple
   multicast sources and groups in a single PIM message.
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Would updating this section title be helpful to readers? The
original mentions "Packed Null-Register", but the text notes that the
Packing Capability bit indicates the "ability of the RP to receive PIM
Packed Null-Register messages and send PIM Packed Register-Stop
messages".

Original:
   2.  Packed Null-Register Packing Capability

Perhaps:
   2.  Packing Capability for PIM Packed Null-Register and PIM Packed Register-Stop Messages

Or:
   2.  Packing Capability
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that the P-bit is correctly placed in Figure 1. We
ask because IANA has allocated flag bit 0.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]" is correct
here. We ask because that section describes the Register-Stop message
format.

Original:
   The fields in the PIM Packed Null-Register message are defined in
   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
   [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis]
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to update these sentences as follows to
clarify which fields are defined in RFCs 7761 and 9436?

Original:
   The fields in the PIM Register-Stop message are defined in
   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
   [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis].
   ...
   The fields in the PIM Packed Null-Register message are defined in
   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
   [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis]
   ...
   The fields in the PIM Packed Register-Stop message are defined in
   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
   [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis]

Perhaps:
   The Group Address and Source Address fields in the PIM Register-Stop
   message are defined in
   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]. The common header is defined in [RFC9436].
   ...
   The Group Address and Source Address fields in the PIM Packed
   Null-Register message are defined in
   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]. The common header is defined in [RFC9436].
   ...
   The Group Address and Source Address fields in the PIM Packed
   Register-Stop message are defined in
   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]. The common header is defined in [RFC9436].
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we removed the citation to [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis] here as
the value is not defined in that document.

Original:
   Type, Subtype: The PIM Packed Null-Register Type value TBD2.
   [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis]

Current:
   Type, Subtype:  PIM Packed Null-Register (13.0).
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Should "until the length of" here be updated to "until the end
of", "throughout the length of", or something similar?

Original:
   After parsing the PIM common header, individual records are then
   parsed one by one until the length of the PIM Packed Null-Register
   message.
   ...
   After parsing the PIM common header, individual records are then
   parsed one by one until the length of the PIM Packed Register-Stop
   message.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Please review "for all purposes" in these two sentences. Is this
phrase needed? Or should it be updated for clarity?

Original:
   Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message is the
   equivalent, for all purposes, of sending or receiving an individual
   Null-Register message for each record represented in the PIM Packed
   Null-Register message.
   ...
   Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Register-Stop message is the
   equivalent, for all purposes, of sending or receiving an individual
   Null-Register message for each record represented in the PIM Packed
   Register-Stop.

Perhaps:
   Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message has the
   equivalent effect of sending or receiving an individual
   Null-Register message for each record represented in the PIM Packed
   Null-Register message.
   ...
   Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Register-Stop message has the
   equivalent effect of sending or receiving an individual
   Null-Register message for each record represented in the PIM Packed
   Register-Stop.
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left in their
current order?
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Also, would it
be helpful to add these to the Terminology section?

MSDP - Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
PIM-SM - PIM Sparse Mode
-->


11) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) We see both "multicast" and "Multicast" used in the document. We updated to
use the lowercase form. Please let us know any objections.

b) We see the following forms used in the document. Would you like to update
for consistency, or will readers understand that these are the same thing?

PIM Null-Register messages vs. PIM Null-Registers
PIM Register-Stop messages vs. PIM Register-Stops
PIM Packed Null-Register messages vs. PIM Packed Null-Registers
PIM Packed Register-Stop messages vs. PIM Packed Register-Stops
-->


12) <!-- [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 Sep 5, 2023, at 11:04 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/09/05

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/rfc9465.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes
where text has been deleted or moved):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-alt-diff.html

Diff of the XML:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
diff files of the XML.

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.original.v2v3.xml

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
only:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9465

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9465 (draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16)

Title            : PIM Null-Register packing
Author(s)        : V. Kamath, R. Sundaram, R. Banthia, A. Gopal
WG Chair(s)      : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride

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