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

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot discuss]
I find it a bit odd that the reason for why the IANA registration policies are changed to Standards Track is only listed in the Security Considerations. I think this belongs in the Abstract and / or Introduction.


In the Security Considerations it lists that the justification is more or less that middleware screws up unknown values, so by making it harder to make registrations, this will reduce the bad impact of this misbehaving middleware. I guess my question is if this is really the appropriate action for the IETF to take in response to badly engineered middleware boxes. I am assuming the old registration policy had a justification that is still valid but now thrown under the bus. Has there been any discussion of this on an IETF list? For example have known middlware vendors been approached to try and get their implementations updated?

It might be that this document is a "last resort" kind of action, but neither the document nor the Shepherds Writeup give any indication of this.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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?

[Ballot comment]

# 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 ?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete.

First, in the IGMP Type Numbers registry in the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) Type Numbers registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/igmp-type-numbers/

the registration procedure is changed to Standards Action as defined in RFC 8126. In addition, the reference for the registry is changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the "Code" Fields registry also in the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) Type Numbers registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/igmp-type-numbers/

the registration procedure is changed to Standards Action as defined in RFC 8126. IANA notes that the reference for the existing registry is not requested to be changed.

Third, a new registry is to be created called the Query Message Flags registry.

IANA Question --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry group? If it needs a new group, does it also need a new category at http://www.iana.org/protocols (and if so, should the group and the category have the same name)?

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined in RFC8126. The registry consists of four bits (0-3). There is a single initial registration in the new registry:

Bit: 0
Short Name: E
Description: Extension
Reference: RFC9279

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the Report Message Flags registry.

IANA Question --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry group? If it needs a new group, does it also need a new category at http://www.iana.org/protocols (and if so, should the group and the category have the same name)?

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined in RFC8126. The registry consists of sixteen bits (0-15). There is a single initial registration in the new registry:

Bit: 0
Short Name: E
Description: Extension
Reference: RFC9279

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-pim-3228bis@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, stig@venaas.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IANA Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocols) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim)
to consider the following document: - 'IANA Considerations for Internet Group
Management Protocols'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-06-05. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies revised IANA Considerations for the Internet
  Group Management Protocol and the Multicast Listener Discovery
  protocol.  This document specifies the guidance provided to IANA to
  manage values associated with various fields within the protocol
  headers of the group management protocols.

  This document obsoletes RFC 3228.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-3228bis/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
A handful of people gave their support, the rest being silent, but this document is not contentious, assuming that the rest are fine with it.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
These are just IANA considerations, but the related protocols have a lot of implementations.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, the document is well written and complete and is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
This is a routing area document. The issues listed do not seem relevant to this IANA considerations document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
BCP. This is a bis version of an existing BCP.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes, no known IPR according to the authors.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Author and editor has. We have not checked with Bill Fenner who is listed as a
contributor, but he is only listed because he was the author of the RFC for which
this is a bis document.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
No known nits.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
No
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No, but please note that there are two informative references to drafts for which we will request publication as well, and it might be best if they can go as a group.
The other two drafts are draft-ietf-pim-3376bis and draft-ietf-pim-3810bis.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
Not sure which metadata, but this will obsolete RFC 3228 which is a BCP.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
Yes, registries are clearly identified with policies, names and initial content.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
No new designated experts.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
A handful of people gave their support, the rest being silent, but this document is not contentious, assuming that the rest are fine with it.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
These are just IANA considerations, but the related protocols have a lot of implementations.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, the document is well written and complete and is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
This is a routing area document. The issues listed do not seem relevant to this IANA considerations document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
BCP. This is a bis version of an existing BCP.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes, no known IPR according to the authors.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Author and editor has. We have not checked with Bill Fenner who is listed as a
contributor, but he is only listed because he was the author of the RFC for which
this is a bis document.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
No known nits.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
No
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No, but please note that there are two informative references to drafts for which we will request publication as well, and it might be best if they can go as a group.
The other two drafts are draft-ietf-pim-3376bis and draft-ietf-pim-3810bis.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
Not sure which metadata, but this will obsolete RFC 3228 which is a BCP.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
Yes, registries are clearly identified with policies, names and initial content.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
No new designated experts.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/