[pim] Re: Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-06

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Dave. These all seem like good updates.

Regards,
Brian

On 7/25/24 2:44 PM, Dave Thaler via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Dave Thaler
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> A PDF with my comments marked up inline can be found at
> https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aqj-Bj9PNivcn_tvdayAlL9xJZJgKQ?e=K42XOF
> 
> Overall the document is well written, and easy to follow.
> That said, I have several specific suggestions:
> 
> Section 2.1.2 (MLD): The registry itself is labeled as policy “IETF Review” but
> the words “IETF Review” per se never appear in RFC 4443.  I’d recommend
> explicitly saying IETF Review here.
> 
> Section 2.2 (Resv Bit): This column heading is confusing. In RFC 9279, the
> “Resv” field is only 3 bits wide, whereas in RFC 3810 and 3376 it is 4 bits
> wide.  And in both 3810bis and 3376bis it is called “Flags”, never “Resv”.  I'd
> recommend "Flags Bit" for consistency with 3810bis and 3376bis.
> 
> Section 2.2 (values in the Resv Bit column): These values may be hard to
> understand. I’d recommend explicitly saying this is the value of the column
> header in the packet format diagrams in 3810bis section 5.1 and R376bis section
> 4.1.
> 
> Section 2.3 (values in the Flags Bit column): Likewise I would add a sentence
> explaining the bit number corresponds to the column label in the packet format
> tables in 3810bis section 5.2 and 3376bis section 4.2.
> 
> Section 4 (Contributors): currently says "RFC 3228 ... forms a portion of the
> content contained herein".  I recommend changing "forms" to "provided".
> 
> Section 5 (Acknowledgements): This is an empty section.  Remove it or fill it
> in.
> 
> Section 6.2 (Informative References): I think 3376bis and 3810bis are both used
> normatively, not informatively.
> 
> 
>