[pim] Re: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis

Hi Toerless and WG.

I have a few comments on the draft.

High level comments

Add Security Considerations and maybe an acknowledgment section?

There is a normative reference to RFC 4607 which is a down reference.
How do we handle this?

Below are some more editorial comments.

3. Levels of conformance
Last paragraph should say IPv6, not IPv4?

3.1
It says "class D IP address".
Should be IPv4 address.

3.3 and elsewhere
Should the IGMPv3lite reference be IGMPv3light? It is not called
"lite" in RFC 5790.
Might it be confusing that it is called IGMPv3lite when it also
applies to MLDv2?

6.1
Third (level 2 implementations only)
Also 2L?

6.2
(Level 2 implementations only.)
Also 2L?

   A host group address or IP address from an SSM range MUST never be
   placed in the source address field or anywhere in a source route or
   record route option of an outgoing IP datagram.  These packets are
   not IP multicast packets but simply invalid packets.

Shouldn't it just say that IP multicast addresses should never be in
the source field etc?

In 7.2
   decremented on arriving datagrams that are not being forwarded.  An
   incoming datagram with an IP host group address in its source address
   field is quietly discarded.  An ICMP/ICMPv6 error message

If I understand correctly, SSM is not regarded as host groups, in that
case, should this be mentioned explicitly in 6.2 or maybe better, just
refer to IP multicast addresses as I'm suggesting for 6.2 above.

10.12
s/tern/term
    that [IGMPsnooping] mandates to explicit support it IGMP snooping
add "in", as in "support it in IGMP"

11.2
   Explanation: This type code messages where introduced by RFC1112 but
   modified versions thereof where also introduced by [RFC2236] and
   [RFC3376], so that it is clearer if all three RFCs are indicated.
   All other references to RFC1112 in this registry are specifically
   referring to that RFC in it's role of defining IGMP version 1 and
   thus need to continue to refer to RFC1112 and not [THIS-RFC.

In first sentence s/This/These
In last sentence s/it's/its
In last sentence add missing ]

A.3
Remove "in" here: IGMP as they had in before.

Thanks,
Stig

On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 12:59 PM Stig Venaas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear WG
>
> We had a working group last call for this document a while back. We
> got very few responses to that and there have also been some changes
> to this document since then.
>
> Hence we are doing a 2nd WGLC on the latest version which is now
> draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis-05. You can find the latest version at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis/
>
> Please review this document and let us know whether you support
> publication or have any concerns or comments or suggestions for any
> changes by October 31st 2025.
>
> Regards,
> Stig

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]