IANA Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocols
draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-07

Yes

Erik Kline
Gunter Van de Velde
Éric Vyncke

No Objection

Deb Cooley
Jim Guichard
Mahesh Jethanandani
Murray Kucherawy
Orie Steele
Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
Warren Kumari
Zaheduzzaman Sarker

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Erik Kline
Yes
Gunter Van de Velde
Yes
Éric Vyncke
Yes
Comment (2024-07-29 for -06) Sent 
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-05

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Stig Venaas for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus _and_ the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Dave Thaler, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-3228bis-06-intdir-telechat-thaler-2024-07-25/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)


## Section 2.2

A specific version is written for IGMPv3 but not for MLD. Suggest adding also a specific version for MLD.

## Section 2.1.2

Suggest adding a specific section to the reference to RFC 4443.

## Section 6.2

Should the two -bis IETF drafts be normative ? If only to ensure that thaey are part of a RFC editor's cluster ?
Deb Cooley
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-04 for -06) Sent 
Consider removing the empty Acknowledgment section.
Jim Guichard
(was Yes) No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-05 for -06) Sent 
Thanks to Susan Hares for her OPSDIR review.
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-07 for -06) Sent 
Thanks to Martin Dürst for his ARTART review.

I support Paul's DISCUSS position.  I'm unclear as to how changing the registration procedure will raise the visibility and importance of the registry, which is the solution described in Section 3.
Orie Steele
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-04 for -06) Not sent 
Thanks to Martin Dürst for the ARTART review.
Paul Wouters
(was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2024-08-29) Sent 
Thanks for addressing my concerns. I have updated my ballot to No Objection.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2024-07-29 for -06) Sent 
Thank you to Elwyn Davies for the GENART review

** Section 2.2 and 2.3. 

-- Do the empty rows for the unallocated code points need to be listed?
-- Are the names of the new registries the section headers of Section 2.2 and 2.3?
-- Are these two registries grouped together under anything?  If so, what is the name of this registry grouping?

** Idnits reported the following:

  -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may
     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  The
     disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have
     been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights
     to the IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current and
     original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the
     disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this
     comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at
     https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

Has one of the original authors of RFC3376 been approached to file the appropriate paperwork with the Trust to assign the new rights?
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-07 for -06) Sent 
Yay, and easy one (this weeks telechat has been a bit rough on me  :-)).

Much thanks to Susan Hares for the OpsDir review - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-3228bis-05-opsdir-lc-hares-2024-06-06/. It  was helpful.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-08 for -06) Not sent 
Thanks for working on this specification.