Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pim-registry-03

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

Hi

Thanks for the review. I have now submitted revision 04 that I believe
takes care of your issues. See below.

On 1/17/2011 5:57 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose
> of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more
> information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
> Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-pim-registry-03
> Reviewer: Jamal Hadi Salim
> Review Date: 2011-01-17
> IETF LC End Date: 2011-01-20
> Intended Status: proposed standard
>
> Summary:
>
> I have some very minor concerns about this document that may need
> to be cleared before publication.
>
> Comments:
>
> The document is well written and structured to request IANA for
> the creation of a registry for PIM message types. The initial
> content specified on this document is based on existing RFCs.
> The document goes on to specify how new PIM message types should
> be allocated.
>
> Major Issues:
>
> No major issues found.
>
> Minor Issues:
> Although section 3.2 describes how the new types should be allocated,
> given that this document is the first time all allocated PIM message
> types are aggregated, it would be useful to also list the unassigned
> message types and summarize what 3.2 says. i.e.
>
>     Type   Name                                      Reference
>     ----  ----------------------------------------  ---------------------
>       0    Hello                                     [RFC3973] [RFC4601]
>       1    Register                                  [RFC4601]
>       2    Register Stop                             [RFC4601]
>       3    Join/Prune                                [RFC3973] [RFC4601]
>       4    Bootstrap                                 [RFC4601]
>       5    Assert                                    [RFC3973] [RFC4601]
>       6    Graft                                     [RFC3973]
>       7    Graft-Ack                                 [RFC3973]
>       8    Candidate RP Advertisement                [RFC4601]
>       9    State Refresh                             [RFC3973]
>      10    DF Election                               [RFC5015]
>      11-14 Unassigned at the moment                  Future IETF Review

I added

11-14 Unassigned      this document

>      15    Reserved (for extension of type space)    [this document]
>
> Nits:
>
> There is an interesting nit in that you have RFC 3973 as a normative
> reference (which sounds deserving in the context of this document)
> but that RFC is an experimental RFC.

I have now made them informative. I believe that is appropriate.

In addition I added the sentence:

The message type is a 4-bit integer with possible values from 0 to 15.

Stig

>
> cheers,
> jamal