Re: [IPv6] Review feedback requested: draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Michael

The short answer re formatting is: the diff is IMHO almost perfect, aka: 99% of diff is payload diff.

The big removed paragraph from 7.2 and Appendix I are both about IGMPv1, so that goes away,
and the pictures in I are only the protocol header and state machiny for IGMPv1. So i think
removal of all of that is correct and was the top priority of the work.

Appendix b is all new writeup from me trying to explain some of the line of thinking that
lead to the changes made, hence to be removed, just for reviewers.

Cheers
    Toerless

The long answer re. formatting was that i was paranoid about creating useless diffs that PIM-WG
members wouldn't to read, and so to be save, i edited draft-eckert-pim-rfc1112bis-00 in txt to
guarantee a zero iddif formatting hickup when bringing the work to PIM-WG:

  diff rfc1112 -> draft-eckert-pim-rfc1112bis-00
  https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=rfc1112&doc_2=draft-eckert-pim-rfc1112bis-00

Then i converted to XML and i compared back to rfc1112:

  diff rfc1112 -> draft-eckert-pim-rfc1112bis-01
  https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=rfc1112&url_2=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-eckert-pim-rfc1112bis-01.txt

And given how that looks IMHO equally almost zero formatting diff,
i didn't bother to go back to convert rfc1112 to XML

On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 04:15:41PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> May I suggest that you first do draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112-00,
> which would be just your updating of 1112 into kramdown/XML.
> 
> Then we can see which edits are just modernization of tools,
> and where the actual, substantive, meat is?
> 
> Appendix I goes away, and then we also have Appendix B (to-be-removed)
> Appendix I has a diagram, so maybe it's important?
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide



-- 
---
[e-mail]