Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-10
review-ietf-pim-3376bis-10-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2024-06-04-00

I am an assigned OPS-DIR directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-10.

Summary: Ready with nits

Overall I found the document ready for publication.

Editorial nits:
1) There are ~8 occasions where "section Section x.y.z" is used. Remove the extra section word.
  - line 530  s/Section Section 4.1.9/Section 4.1.9
  - line 555  s/section Section 8.1/Section 8.1
  - line 739  s/section Section 4.2.13/Section 4.2.13
  - line 979  s/Section Section 3.2/Section 3.2
  - line 1241 s/section Section 7/Section 7
  - line 1359 s/Section Section 6.4/Section 6.4
  - line 1583 s/Section Section 6.6.3/Section 6.6.3
  - line 1674 s/section Section 7/Section 7

Questions:
1) For example in Section 4.2.13 it states:
  "An SSM-aware host SHOULD NOT send a MODE_IS_EXCLUDE record type
   for multicast addresses that fall within the SSM address range."

  Since this is not "MUST NOT send" what is the occasion when the host
  chooses not to "SHOULD NOT" and sends a MODE_IS_EXCLUDE record type
  for multicast addresses that fall within the SSM address range?

  The case justifying going against "SHOULD NOT" is not described anywhere
  or I just did not find/understand it.

2) Similarly to 1) in Section 6.4 what is the case when the router 
  would not "SHOULD ignore"? The case is not described anywhere or
  I did not find/understand it.

If there is no cases to describe for 1) and 2) the I would use MUST NOT
and MUST accordingly..