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

[Jamal Hadi Salim <[e-mail]>]

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
    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.


cheers,
jamal