[pim] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-03

Peter Yee via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 04 September 2019 06:36 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 68A791200CD; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 23:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Peter Yee via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>
Message-ID: <156757898733.22856.8990552734377097995@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 23:36:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/WHS-Fhz3MqeeECVPVuVsvdXGwxM>
Subject: [pim] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-03
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:36:28 -0000

Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-03
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2019-09-03
IETF LC End Date: 2019-09-03
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:  This document clarifies use of the PIM message header Reserved bits
and adds subtypes in order to extend the type space to allow for future usage. 
The expansion seems straightforward and reasonable.  [Ready with Issues.]

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

Page 6, Table 1: I'm not a fan of this table format.  It overloads the Name
column header to describe both the Type and the Flag Bits.  Perhaps something
that looks like (use a fixed-width font to view this properly):

    Type       Flag Bits   Name    Flag Bits Desc.        Reference
     0                     Hello                       [RFC3973][RFC7761]
                 0-7               Reserved
    10                     DF Election                 [RFC5015]
                 0-3               Reserved
                 4-7               Subtype

It's a suggestion.  I just don't find the overloaded column header and repeated
data particularly appealing.  It took me a few seconds to figure out what was
being done here.  As it is, Name isn't a terribly good way of describing the
meaning of the Flag Bits.  Just a suggestion.

Nits/editorial comments:


On all pages except the first, in the page header: change "Extention" to

Page 1, Abstract, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs: change all uses of RFCxxxx to RFC
xxxx.  The space-less form is only used for references within square brackets.


Page 1, Abstract, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "per message" to

Page 3, Section 4, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: delete the comma.

Page 3, Section 4, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: append a comma after "Bits". 
Change "well defined" to "well-defined".

Page 4, Section 5, 1st sentence: change "pim" to "PIM".

Page 5, Figure 3 caption: You've used "sub-type", "SubType", "Subtype" (from
the revised IANA registry in Table 1) and here "Sub-Types".  I'd suggest
choosing one form and using it more consistently.  Given the spacing
requirements of the diagram, a hyphenated form would probably not be the
optimal choice.