Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-03-01
Requested 2023-02-08
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Vikas Ramesh Kamath , Ramakrishnan Cokkanathapuram Sundaram , Raunak Banthia , Ananya Gopal
I-D last updated 2023-02-27
Completed reviews Intdir Telechat review of -14 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -10 by Yingzhen Qu (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -14 by Tal Mizrahi (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Behcet Sarikaya (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tal Mizrahi
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 16)
Result Has nits
Completed 2023-02-27

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

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-null-register-packing
Reviewer: Tal Mizrahi
Review Date: February 28th, 2023
Intended Status: Standards Track

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

This document is clear and straightforward, and is almost ready for publication.

- "This draft" => "This document"
- "The draft" => "The document"
- Section 2 - please mention that you are referring to the 'P' bit in Figure 1.
- Section 3 and Section 4: please describe explicitly what happens
with the Subtype. It looks like you are not asking for an allocation,
so is this field going to have a constant value? Please describe this
in the document.
- Section 9: it would help if this section was more explicit in
defining the rows that you would like to add to the table in the PIM
Message Types registry. In addition, it looks like for each of the two
types you want to allocate a 'P' flag, right? Please describe this