[pim] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-05
Martin Dürst via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 04 June 2024 08:47 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 5ECA5C151531; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 01:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Martin Dürst via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.13.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171749084536.37257.3498399355231855483@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 01:47:25 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: 2HBFCRR64Y4DLVHKLIGWSBT7FOQURS52
X-Message-ID-Hash: 2HBFCRR64Y4DLVHKLIGWSBT7FOQURS52
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pim.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-pim-3228bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: [pim] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-05
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Tjs0FlHBR1wnYm24KuezC-bM3aA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pim-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pim-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pim-leave@ietf.org>
Reviewer: Martin Dürst Review result: Ready with Issues This document obsoletes RFC 3228. I have read both RFC 3228 and this document, they were both very short. The new document changes registry policy for Type and Code fields in the IPv4 IGMP header from IESG Approval or Standards Action to Standards Action exclusively. It also creates new registries for Query Message Flags (in the Multicast Listener Query Message and the IGMPv3 Query Message) and Report Message Flags (in the Multicast Listener Report Message and the IGMPv3 Report Message). Each of them is populated with one entry, with Standards Action for future entries. This is mostly a document about registry bookkeeping. I did not find any application related issues. The main issue and only issue that I found is that the detailed (10 lines) security section was replaced with a one-liner in the new document, without references elsewhere. As a result, there are some registries, but other than "Standards Action", there is no advice at all for what should be considered when planning additional registrations. Regards, Martin.
- [pim] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3… Martin Dürst via Datatracker
- [pim] Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Brian Haberman
- [pim] Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Martin J. Dürst