IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id-07
review-ietf-pim-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id-07-genart-lc-hares-2025-12-09-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id-??
Reviewer: Sue Hares
Review Date: 2025-12-09
IETF LC End Date: 2025-11-28
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Not Ready
Two Major issues bring the draft to this state:
1) alignment with IANA considerations guidelines in RFC8126
(see RFC9778's interpretation of RFC8126).

2) I'm confused by how this document updates the registries in the IPv6
Multicast Address space.

I am happy to work with the author team on a video conference to help them
quickly resolve this issue.

Major issues:

1) Alignment with IANA considerations guidelines in RFC8126
(see RFC9778's interpretation of RFC8126)

Section 4 contains a registry group (IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry)
and the new registry name (Dynamic Multicast Group IDs).

However, it does not put all the information into the formats I expected.
It goes against the guidelines from RFC8126 by not putting
 all the information needed in the IANA considerations section.

2) Updating the current registries in the IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry.

I cannot determine from the text how the current registries
(IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes, Node-Local Scope Multicast Addresses,
Link-Local Scope Multicast Addresses, Site-Local Scope Multicast Addresses, and
 Variable Scope Multicast Addresses) interact with the new registry.

There is overlap in the proposed address ranges (0xFF000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF), and
this draft's text does not clearly describe how the existing registries interact
with the new table.

The authors may have thought through this carefully, but I cannot determine
this interaction.

3) After the authors finish reworking the text to fix issues 1 and 2,
please remember to go through how the "Unicast-based (Including SSM) Multicsat
Group IDs" registry needs to be updated.

in the IPv6 Multicast Address Space

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:
The sentence structure of the Abstract lacks subjects in sentences
1, 2, and 3. This makes reading the text like reading a bullet list rather than
a description.

Possible fixes:
sentence 1:
Old: /Describes/
New: /This document describes/

sentence 2:
Old: /Recommends/
New: /It Recommends/

Sentence 3:
Old: / Suggests/
New: /It also suggests/