Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-08
review-ietf-pim-assert-packing-08-rtgdir-lc-peng-2023-03-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-03-02
Requested 2023-02-16
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Yisong Liu , Toerless Eckert , Mike McBride , Zheng Zhang
I-D last updated 2023-10-13 (Latest revision 2023-04-19)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -08 by Ines Robles (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Shuping Peng (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -08 by Tommy Pauly (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Shuping Peng
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/t9qLGsXOqpGORcFSQ769dcgizis
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 12)
Result Has nits
Completed 2023-03-01
review-ietf-pim-assert-packing-08-rtgdir-lc-peng-2023-03-01-00
Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-08
Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review Date: 27 Febrary 2023
IETF LC End Date: 2 March 2023
Intended Status: Standards

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be
considered prior to publication.

Comments:
3.2
"..., otherwise it is 0." What does "it" indicate?

3.3
How to understand this "layer" mentioned in the following text?
"Instead, sending and receiving of PackedAssert messages as specified in the
following subsections is logically a layer in between sending/receiving of
Assert messages and serialization/deserialization of their respective packets."

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.

Nits:

Abstract
As PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM), the term "PIM-SSM" is better to be expanded as
well.

1. Introduction
It would be better to expand "RP" on its first use.

2. Problem statement
s/occur/occurs

3.1
"PIM Hello Assert Packing Option" or "PIM Assert Packing Hello Option"?

3.2
(S,G) are better to be expanded.
Maybe in the following text "...Source Address (S), Group Address (G)...".

s/P)acked/(P)

It would be better to start a paragraph from "If the (P) flag is 2, ..."

3.3
s/encoding/encodings

3.3.1
s/packe/pack
s/Threrefore/Therefore