[pim] Deb Cooley's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast- addr-alloc-ps-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This should be easily addressed, it is a common issue for Informational
specifications:

With the exception of BCP 14, there are no normative references.  It would seem
that there should be at least a couple?  Perhaps RFC 3307, since the draft
doesn't actually define what a 'multicast address' is?  There might be others
as well.  I encourage the authors to consider this.  Any reference that is
necessary to understand the specification should be normative.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Joe Salowey for their secdir review.  Like Paul Wouters and Joe have
stated, it appears that the security considerations doesn't really address this
potential issues.

Why not MUST?:  There are a number of SHOULDs where the rationale for why one
might not take that action is missing.



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