Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10
review-ietf-pim-3810bis-10-genart-lc-housley-2024-05-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10
Requested revision 10 (document currently at 12)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-06-05
Requested 2024-05-21
Requested by Gunter Van de Velde
Authors Brian Haberman
I-D last updated 2025-03-28 (Latest revision 2024-08-27)
Completed reviews Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -10 by Mohamed Boucadair (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -10 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -11 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-3810bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/f23S6yK2DNJwYPuCJ163Mc7dTgQ
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 12)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2024-05-24
review-ietf-pim-3810bis-10-genart-lc-housley-2024-05-24-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2024-05-24
IETF LC End Date: 2024-06-05
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready


Major Concerns:

Section B.2: The list of changes should talk about the change of the
Reserved field to the Flags field.


Minor Concerns:

Section 7.4: The last sentence says:

   SSM-aware routers SHOULD
   ignore MLDv1 Report and DONE messages that contain multicast
   addresses in the SSM address, SHOULD NOT use such Reports to
   establish IP forwarding state, and MAY log an error if it
   receives such a message.

I think "SSM address" is supposed to be "SSM address range".


Nits:

Section 1: s/defined in [RFC4607]/defined in [RFC4607]./

Section 5.2.1: s/The Reserved field are/s/The Reserved field is/

Section 7.4.1 and Section 7.4.2: The other tables from RFC 3810 were
reformatted.  Why not this one too?

Section 8.2.1: s/SSM range/SSM address range/

Section B.2: s/changes made since RFC 3810./changes made since [RFC3810]./