Early Review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis-08
review-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis-08-tsvart-early-tuexen-2026-04-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Early Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2026-02-04
Requested 2026-01-20
Requested by Stig Venaas
Authors Toerless Eckert , Dr. Steve E. Deering
I-D last updated 2026-06-11 (Latest revision 2026-06-11)
Completed reviews Tsvart Early review of -08 by Michael Tüxen (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -07 by Zheng Zhang (diff)
Intdir Early review of -07 by Pascal Thubert (diff)
Iotdir Early review of -07 by Erik Nordmark (diff)
Secdir Early review of -07 by Brian Weis (diff)
Comments 
If possible, it would be good to get some of these reviewers.
 
SECDIR: Brian Weis, Kyle Rose, Dave Thaler
TSVDIR: Michael Tüxen, Kyle Rose
INTDIR: Jen Linkova, Rick Taylor, Pascal Thubert, Michael Tüxen, Dave Thaler
IOTDIR: Pascal Thubert, Eric Nordmark, Carsten Borman

Note that Brian Haberman has done extensive reviews of this document, so it is best to not have him as a reviewer.
Assignment Reviewer Michael Tüxen
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/-_ja4fIleCfvsY6iLQcJYJW6h8I
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2026-04-02
review-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis-08-tsvart-early-tuexen-2026-04-02-00
First of all, I would like to apologize for the long delay in reviewing it.

In particular, I focused on the new text by using rfcdiff as suggested. The
text captures the current state of the API in a good way. Please double check
that all acronyms are resolved on their first use in the final text (when all
text marked for removal is actually removed).

I found two typos:
* A.5. 1st paragpraph
  trough -> through
* A.6 7th paragraph
  use the relevent port -> use the relevant port

Best regards
Michael