[pim] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-zerocon f-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-13: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-13: No Objection

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/



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

Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review, and the revisions to the
document by the WG are appreciated.

==[ prior DISCUSS ]==
For the PIM WG chairs and responsible AD: this document appears to describe
both current deployment issues (Section 2) and requirement/considerations
(Section 3, and 5).  However, these topics do not appear to be in scope of
08-02 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pim/08-02/) (or 09,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pim/09/) of the charter.  The
closest related text is “Create multicast protocol design experience
documents”.  Perhaps deployment issues could be considered “protocol design
experience”, but requirements don’t seem to be fit.

I’ll note that this document was adopted in Sept-2023 when the -08 charter
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pim/08/) from 2015 scoped the
WG.  It also didn’t have producing informational requirements/problem statement
documents in scope. ==[ end ]==

I will leave it to the discretion of the responsible AD as explained in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/_AINlGHUQbXgRACrPdQ69yPinZY/ that "7)
Develop multicast group address allocation protocols" of the current charter
interprets "protocols" to be not just be "technical protocols" but also
supporting documents.  I would recommend that when this 8-year old charter is
updated, that this point be made explicit.



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