[RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mohamed,
      Thanks for the feedback! I will trim all points where I agree with 
the request. Responses/questions in-line...

On 5/23/24 4:30 AM, Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Mohamed Boucadair
> Review result: Has Issues
> 
> Hi Brian, PIM WG,
> 
> Thank you for the effort put into the document to maintain MLD specs. The scope
> of the bis is reasonable and adequately described in Appendix B.2. I would
> insist more early in the document that the main change is associating meaning
> with fields that are used to be reserved, though.

Are you thinking of a sentence in the Introduction that captures the 
clarification of how reserved bits are managed?

> 
> Please find below some comments, fwiw.
> 
> # General
> 
> ## Ops considerations
> 
> How to determine whether a received MLDv2 message is to be interpreted
> following the rules in the bis or 3810 (that is, the meaning is actually
> associated or not with what used to be a reserved bit)?

This document makes 3810 obsolete, so 3810bis is normative.

> 
> ## Reserved vs. Unassigned
> 
> I wonder whether the remaining “Reserved” field can be renamed to “Unassigned”
> to have a provision for future use. Otherwise, I’m assuming 8126 definition is
> followed here:
> 
>        Unassigned:  Not currently assigned, and available for assignment
>              via documented procedures.  While it's generally clear that
>              any values that are not registered are unassigned and
>              available for assignment, it is sometimes useful to
>              explicitly specify that situation.  Note that this is
>              distinctly different from "Reserved".
> 
>        Reserved:  Not assigned and not available for assignment.
>              Reserved values are held for special uses, such as to extend
>              the namespace when it becomes exhausted.  "Reserved" is also
>              sometimes used to designate values that had been assigned
>              but are no longer in use, keeping them set aside as long as
>              other unassigned values are available.  Note that this is
>              distinctly different from "Unassigned".
> 
>              Reserved values can be released for assignment by the change
>              controller for the registry (this is often the IESG, for
>              registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream).

Yes, the fields currently called "Reserved" could be changed to 
"Unassigned".

> 
> ## pre-RFC5378 work
> 
> As RFC 3810 was published before 10 November 2008, we may need to include a
> disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work
> (https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/tlp-5/) unless we
> obtain your approval to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust.
> 
> Was there any action on that front to reach out the authors?

I have not made such an attempt. I do know that one author of 3810 is 
retired and no longer an active IETF participant. I can work with the 
PIM chairs to determine the best path forward.

> # Section 8.2.1:
> 
> Current:
>     An SSM-aware host that receives an MLDv1 General Query or MLDv1 Group
>     Specific Query for a multicast address in the SSM range SHOULD log an
>     error.  It is RECOMMENDED that implementions provide a configuration
>     option to disable use of Host Compatibility Mode to allow networks to
>     operate only in SSM mode.  This configuration option SHOULD be
>     disabled by default.
> 
> ## Any guidance about rate-limiting logging for the same error?

I will mirror the rate-limiting guidance found in 8.3.1.

> ## I’m afraid the last part of the sentence is not clear as one may interpret
> it as the configuration knob is not supported at all. I suggest to make it
> explicit that you are talking about the knob’s default value. ## Some may
> object to the use of normative language for the local configuration. I think it
> is fine for this case. ## s/ implementions/implementation

s/It is RECOMMENDED that implementations/It is RECOMMENDED that an 
implementation/

s/This configuration option SHOULD be disabled by default/The default 
value for the configuration option SHOULD be disabled or off/

Thanks!
Brian