[pim] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-06: Yes

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-3228bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-05

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Stig Venaas for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus _and_ the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Dave Thaler, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request),
please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-3228bis-06-intdir-telechat-thaler-2024-07-25/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 2.2

A specific version is written for IGMPv3 but not for MLD. Suggest adding also a
specific version for MLD.

## Section 2.1.2

Suggest adding a specific section to the reference to RFC 4443.

## Section 6.2

Should the two -bis IETF drafts be normative ? If only to ensure that thaey are
part of a RFC editor's cluster ?