PIM Message Type Space Extension and Reserved Bits
draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-04

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-03

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Mallory Knodel for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/KY_LW1lMtizTA-cTQPh7AMWMxRM).

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
I think it's wrong to say "updated" in Section 3, because the format hasn't changed since the document it's replacing.  I would just strike the word "updated".  I have similar thoughts about Section 5, which claims to "extend" something, but as far as I can see, nothing is changing since RFC 8736.

[Ballot comment]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-03

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one COMMENT point (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Mike McBride for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## Section 3

Can the new header still be named "common header" when section 5 redefines it ? Nothing critical here, more wordsmithing (and I have no proposals).

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. I have one minor concern I'd like to mention. You define 13.0 through 15.15 as type.subtype. I assume that each of the 48 distinct type.subtype tuples is intended to have the exact same semantics as the "legacy" 0-12 type space, that is, each type.subtype is logically distinct, they are nothing more and nothing less than an extension mechanism. In particular, there is no significance if two different ones match on the type value but are different on the subtype value, it's really just an 8 bit number whose high-order nibble happens to be d, e, or f.

Probably this is obvious enough as it stands, but it seems like it might help, and wouldn't hurt, to state it explicitly.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

Changes are to be made in the PIM Message Types registry on the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/

First, all references to [RFC8736] will be replaced by the reference: [ RFC-to-be ]. There are two instances: one as the reference for the entire registry and the other for message types 13.2 - 15.15.

Next, section 7 of the current draft shows a version of the PIM Message Types registry that does not include the early assignments that are currently in the registry. There are two Internet-Drafts that requested early assignments in this registry; they are:

[RFC-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16] and [RFC-ietf-pim-assert-packing-12]

Both drafts have been submitted to the IESG for publication.

IANA will retain the early registrations in the revised PIM Message Types registry.

Finally, IANA will use the extended type notation for the following message types:

2.0
4.7
5.0
5.1
12.7
13.0
13.1

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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 Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-05-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, mmcbride7@gmail.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (PIM Message Type Space Extension and Reserved Bits) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim)
to consider the following document: - 'PIM Message Type Space Extension and
Reserved Bits'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2023-05-11. 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


  The PIM version 2 messages share a common message header format.  The
  common header definition contains eight reserved bits.  This document
  specifies how these bits may be used by individual message types and
  extends the PIM type space.

  This document updates RFC7761 and RFC3973 by defining the use of the
  currently Reserved field in the PIM common header.  This document
  further updates RFC7761 and RFC3973, along with RFC5015, RFC5059,
  RFC6754, and RFC8364, by specifying the use of the currently reserved
  bits for each PIM message.

  This document obsoletes RFC8736.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis/



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

This version is dated 4 July 2022.

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?

Broad agreement? Yes, but then again no comments on the list. But this is a
unique document as it's the first time we've rushed through a draft like this.
It's purpose is to fix a bug in rfc 8736 that is holding up other drafts. All
draft progression information was very open on the list.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

It's a draft simply to make a change to RFC8736 to mark Flag Bits (for all the
PIM messages) as Unassigned instead of Reserved.

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

Not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

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.

AD review, ID Nits

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

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

No issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Tt is replacing/obsoleting rfc8736.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

No IPR

13. 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.

Yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

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?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No

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.

Yes. Tt is replacing/obsoleting rfc8736. Metadata is correct.

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).

IANA section is correct. Only a minor, but important, change to RFC8736.

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.

N/A

This version is dated 4 July 2022.

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?

Broad agreement? Yes, but then again no comments on the list. But this is a
unique document as it's the first time we've rushed through a draft to
fix a bug in rfc 8736 that is holding up other drafts. All draft progression
information was very open on the list.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

It's a draft simply to mark Flag Bits (for all the PIM messages) as Unassigned
instead of Reserved.

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

Not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

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.

AD review, ID Nits

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

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

No issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. Tt is replacing/obsoleting rfc8736.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

No IPR

13. 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.

Yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

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?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No

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.

Yes. Tt is replacing/obsoleting rfc8736. Metadata is correct.

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).

IANA section is correct. Only a minor change to RFC8736.

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.

N/A