[pim] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-11: (with COMMENT)

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-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-3376bis/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-11

Thank you for the work put into this document. I have mainly reviewed the diff
with RFC 3376:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc3376&url2=draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-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.

Other thanks to Bob Halley, 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)

## Internet Standard ?

Should this document aims at "Internet standard" per RFC 6410 ?

## Sections 4.1.4 and 4.2.3

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

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 4.2.13

Perhaps a little pedantic, but what is a "valid IP address" ? Suggest using
"valid unicast IP address" (and perhaps "non link-local" ?).

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 6.4.2

>From Bob Halley's review `6.4.2 paragraph 8 duplicates a word in the text
"Section Section 6.6.3".`