Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-05
review-ietf-pim-3228bis-05-artart-lc-duerst-2024-06-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-3228bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2024-06-05
Requested 2024-05-22
Authors Brian Haberman
I-D last updated 2024-06-04
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Andy Smith (diff)
Genart Early review of -05 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Susan Hares (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -05 by Martin J. Dürst (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Ned Smith (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -06 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -06 by Martin J. Dürst (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Martin J. Dürst
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-3228bis by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/eLRyxjToYKg54cd82nfiudDLkxo
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2024-06-04
review-ietf-pim-3228bis-05-artart-lc-duerst-2024-06-04-00
This document obsoletes RFC 3228. I have read both RFC 3228 and this document,
they were both very short.

The new document changes registry policy for Type and Code fields in the IPv4
IGMP header from IESG Approval or Standards Action to Standards Action
exclusively. It also creates new registries for Query Message Flags (in the
Multicast Listener Query Message and the IGMPv3 Query Message) and Report
Message Flags (in the Multicast Listener Report Message and the IGMPv3 Report
Message). Each of them is populated with one entry, with Standards Action for
future entries.

This is mostly a document about registry bookkeeping. I did not find any
application related issues.

The main issue and only issue that I found is that the detailed (10 lines)
security section was replaced with a one-liner in the new document, without
references elsewhere. As a result, there are some registries, but other than
"Standards Action", there is no advice at all for what should be considered
when planning additional registrations.

Regards,    Martin.