[pim] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-11: (with COMMENT)

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-11: No Objection

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-3810bis/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-11

Thank you for the work put into this document. I have mainly reviewed the diff
with RFC 3810:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc3810&url2=draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-11&difftype=--html

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

Special thanks to Stig Venaas for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended status (i.e.,
it is "Internet Standard").

Other thanks to Sheng Jiang, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request),
please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-3376bis-11-intdir-telechat-halley-2024-07-28/
(just one nit that I have repeated in my ballot)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 5.1.6

Should the IANA registry name be used rather than the reference to the RFC
creating that registry ?

Unsure whether allocation is the right term to be used here, suggest to use
"Specification".

Should there be the usual text "unassigned bits in the Flags field MUST be set
to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception" ?

## Section 5.1.11

Should `unicast addresses` be refined ? I.e., can it be link-local ? or
unspecified ?

## Appendix B.1

Unsure whether this section (about changes from MLDv1) is useful in a -bis
document.

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Sections 7.6.2

Repeating Sheng Jiang nits about using lower case in IPv6 addresses per RFC
5952 (especially since all other IPv6 addresses are rightfully written).