[pim] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-extension-06: (with COMMENT)
John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 01 February 2022 23:07 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pim@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159393A14F4; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 15:07:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-extension@ietf.org, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, mmcbride7@gmail.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, mmcbride7@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.44.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <164375686405.30998.18217252722738951973@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 15:07:44 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/BfvLao2C-bTa9GLEqqKw8uZrSvo>
Subject: [pim] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-extension-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 23:07:44 -0000
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-extension-06: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-extension/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this document. It’s clear and useful. I have a few comments I hope may be helpful. 1. I’d like to echo Rob Wilton’s first comment, about how the use of the term “extension” to mean slightly different things at different points is not helpful to readability. Concretely: - Maybe the title could be something like “… Message Extensibility Mechanism” instead of “… Message Extension”? - As Rob points out the use of “extension” is particularly vexatious in §5. I like his suggestion of using “extension TLVs” although there are many other options, for example you could say “… new extension types”. 2. In Section 1 you say “Additional Data is defined for…” and then go on. On first glance, I thought maybe you meant that there was existing use of the Additional Data field in the cited documents (which would have necessitated some further discussion, perhaps). This minor confusion would be easily prevented by changing to say “The Additional Data field is defined…” 3. Apropos the above, I suppose I don’t need to worry about whether there is legacy use of the Additional Data field, because your introduction of the E-bit takes care of that concern? 4. I was surprised you don’t reserve anything at all out of your 2^16 code point space for experimental use or development. Given that you’ve specified a relatively restrictive allocation policy (IETF Review), what’s your expectation for how people will work on under-development extensions? Are they expected to just squat on code points? It seems like a case of training people to behave badly by not giving them any options for behaving well. :-( 5. Speaking of code points, I like the suggestion mentioned in Ben’s review, that it might be a good idea to define a noop TLV in this document.
- [pim] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-p… John Scudder via Datatracker