[Dime] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-13: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. Like Barry and other ADs, I
found this document difficult to read: long and complex sentences do not help
the reader (but I am not a native English speaker). Therefore, I trust the
responsible AD for the correctness of all the details in the specification.
E.g., FSM or time line diagrams would have been helpful.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

== COMMENTS ==

Any reason why the authors affiliation is not shown ?

The shepherd write-up is dated back in 2018... Is it still applicable ?

-- Section 7.2 --
About the flag bits, I wonder why the values are not 0x01 and 0x02 rather than
0x01 and 0x10. Isn't this a waste of bits ? Should the IANA sub-registry for
those flags be mentioned?