Telechat Review of draft-ietf-pim-pfm-forwarding-enhancements-05
review-ietf-pim-pfm-forwarding-enhancements-05-rtgdir-telechat-pignataro-2026-06-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-pfm-forwarding-enhancements
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Telechat Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2026-06-12
Requested 2026-05-29
Requested by Gunter Van de Velde
Authors Ananya Gopal , Stig Venaas , Francesco Meo
I-D last updated 2026-07-06 (Latest revision 2026-07-06)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -05 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -05 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Pignataro
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-pim-pfm-forwarding-enhancements by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/hPVxSTJrEmq0OWI3hlwTdBWf-DE
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Has issues
Completed 2026-06-07
review-ietf-pim-pfm-forwarding-enhancements-05-rtgdir-telechat-pignataro-2026-06-07-00
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
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-pfm-forwarding-enhancements-05
Reviewer:        Carlos Pignataro
Intended Status: Experimental

Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.

1. T-bit semantics potential conflict with RFC 8364 — message-drop vs. TLV-drop
(Section 2.1)

The draft states: "If set to 0, a router that does not support the TLV or any
contained Sub-TLV MUST NOT forward the message." This seems to conflict with
RFC 8364 Section 3.4.2, which defines T-bit behavior at the TLV level, not the
message level. In RFC 8364, a non-transitive unsupported TLV is dropped from
the forwarded message — the message itself continues forwarding. Which one is
it?

2. Group Source Info TLV Figure confusing

The diagram shows Group Address and Source Address as single 32-bit rows, but
the text correctly notes these are variable-length (64 or 160 bits for
IPv4/IPv6 respectively). Could the Figure be updated to show variable length?

3. Could 'Relaxed-RPF' be added to the Terminology section?

4. On the IANA Section, for "PIM Flooding Mechanism Group Source Info Message
Types", could an experimental range and the value of 0 be defined?

I hope these are clear and useful.

Best,

Carlos Pignataro