Re: [pim] WGLC feedback for draft-ietf-pim-3376bis

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless,

On 12/14/23 4:27 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Dear Brian,
> 
> Thanks a lot for all this meticulous work! I've just sent another related email
> to one set of possible change requests i didn't want to propose without other
> peoples feedback (changing automatic fallback for older router presence).
> 
> The following feedback is marked question/nit/minor/myor/comment.
> It is also numbered for easier referencing if necessary later.
> 
> 1.question:
> 
> I am not sure what the current BCP is wrt. to authorship of a bis that
> maintains most of the original text. Was this discussed and concluded that
> there was evidence/opinion that it is BCP to remove all the original authors ?

This was discussed amongst the design team and the chairs/ADs. With the 
number of authors who are no longer reachable, we felt it was best to 
move them to a Contributors section. I don't think there is a BCP for 
such actions, but we did discuss it with a number of people to ensure we 
were doing the right thing.

> 
> Just wondering. I do understand it could be painful to go through the IETF
> review/AUTH48 process if any of the prior author is listed and is unresponsive.
> 

Correct. I was especially concerned with the Auth48 phase where each 
person listed on the first page has to provide an acknowledgement prior 
to final publication.

> 2.minor:
> 
> Should we not have a way for operators to determine which revision of
> IGMP version 3 an implementation claims to be conformant to ? Something
> like: Implementations of IGMP version 3 that are conforming to this
> specification (as opposed to [RFC3376]) SHOULD have an operator interface
> indication for this (such as a CLI show command or a YANG element).
> 

I think that is a useful capability, but not something we can put into a 
-bis document targeted for advancement to Internet Standard. 
Additionally, I typically seen this accomplished with vendors claiming 
conformance to a specific RFC. Since this document would get a new RFC 
number, that approach seems to work well.

> Rest of review in inline into idnits formatted draft:
> 

I'll review the IDnits comments and see where edits can/need to be made.

Regards,
Brian