Early Review of draft-ietf-pim-gaap-14
review-ietf-pim-gaap-14-intdir-early-jiang-2026-04-16-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pim-gaap |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 18) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
| Deadline | 2026-04-16 | |
| Requested | 2026-02-24 | |
| Requested by | Stig Venaas | |
| Authors | Dino Farinacci , Mike McBride | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-07-03 (Latest revision 2026-07-03) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -11
by Zheng Zhang
(diff)
Intdir Early review of -14 by Sheng Jiang (diff) |
|
| Comments |
It would be great if we can get an early review before requesting publication. We have good support in the WG and I believe the document is in good shape, but we could need some more review. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Sheng Jiang |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-pim-gaap by Internet Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/Uu-H8lTR5R9cqSceAoOLS0oFn5g | |
| Reviewed revision | 14 (document currently at 18) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2026-04-16 |
review-ietf-pim-gaap-14-intdir-early-jiang-2026-04-16-00
Document: draft-ietf-pim-gaap Title: Group Address Allocation Protocol (GAAP) Reviewer: Sheng Jiang Review result: Ready with Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the IntDir directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This Experimental document describes a design for a lightweight decentralized multicast group address allocation protocol. Overall, it is well written and in a good sharp. There are a several issues the authors could make improvements: In section 4, the Group Name is in variable length. The design only describe it is "string is terminated with a null character." From the design perspective of a protocol. There is no way to decide how long it is and process the following unless process every bits from the start as characters. It is highly recommended to add a length field before, and padding bits at the end for alignment. In section 4, in GAAP Claim Message, there are both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address. But according to definition in section 2, a Group Address should be an IPv4 "OR" an IPv6 address. It is recommended to replace this two address fields by a field with "Address Family" flag. The flag would decide the length of the address field. In section 4, 32-bit timestamp in seconds is too small. It have the "year 2038" issue. It is highly recommended to use 64-bit timestamp. In section 8, the draft claim "At this time there is no dynamic rekeying ... Therefore, all nodes must be manually rekeyed". I understand the dynamic rekeying management is out of scope of this document. But it can be worked with other existing DKM mechanisms. It is not wise to state "must be manually rekeyed".