[RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-10

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Adrian!

I will make the suggested updates.

Regards,
Brian

On 5/23/24 11:58 AM, Adrian Farrel via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Adrian Farrel
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have reviewed this document during IETF last call as part of the
> Routing Directorate. The comments are principally for the benefit of the
> Routing ADs, but it may be sensible to take them as IETF last call
> comments and apply fixes or discuss them with me.
> 
> The document is a simple update to RFC 3376 to include some fixes,
> mainly arising from Errata Reports. The changes have been clearly
> applied (with the exception of 1501 and 7339 as mentioned below).
> 
> The applicability of this work to routing are clear and need no
> further work.
> 
> My comments are all editorial in nature, although the first one applies
> to the metadata and so has slightly more weight.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> ===
> 
> Per Errata Reports 1501 and 7339, shouldn't the document header say
> "Updates: 2236 (if approved)"
> 
> And the Abstract and Introduction explain why/how this is an update?
> 
> ---
> 
> The Abstract is a little confusing about whether this is a revision to
> IGMPv3 (which would not be IGMPv3) or just a revised version of the
> specification.
> I think that this document specifies IGMPv3, so you need to say:
> - This document specifies IGMPv3
> - It is a revised version of the specificaltion to include
>    clarifications and fixes for errata in RFC 3376
> - It obsoletes RFC 3376
> - It backward compatible with the specification included in RFC 3376
> 
> I would begin the Abstract with the three sentences that describe IGMP
> and IGMPv3. Then I would have a second para to describe this document.
> 
> ---
> 
> 1.
> 
> A much better approach than the Abstract. No mention of a revision of
> 3376, just a specification of IGMPv3.
> 
> However:
> 
> a. The statement of obsoleting 3376 is too terse. You need to:
>     - Give a brief statement of why/how
>     - Point to Appendix C for the details
> 
> b. The BCP 14 boilerplate is very out of date. You need to use the
>     most recent version. It is also customary to put this in its own
>     section (such as 1.1).
> 
> ---
> 
> 13.
> 
> I-D.ietf-pim-3228bis should be a normative reference.
> 
> ---
> 
> Appendix C
> 
> No mention of Errata Report 7339?
> 
> 
>