[pim] Re: draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis-07 early Rtgdir review

Thanks a lot, Sandy

All in -08

Inline

On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 11:28:20PM -0800, Zheng Zhang via Datatracker wrote:
> Document: draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis
> Title: Host Extensions for IP Multicasting and "Any Source Multicasting" (ASM)
> IP service Reviewer: Zheng Zhang Review result: Has Nits
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis/
> 
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts
> as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
> updating the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis-07
> Reviewer: Zheng(Sandy) Zhang
> Review Date: 2026-02-06
> Intended Status: Standards Track
> 
> Summary:
> This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be
> considered prior to publication.
> 
> Comments:
> >From routing perspective, I focus more on IGMP/MLD protocol-related content.
> 1. Application Scenarios:
> Does it relate to specific application scenarios?
> For example, when sending multicast packets and the local interface is also a
> receiver in that group, requiring loopback packet uploading, can this
> functionality be applied to scenarios similar to multicast emulation? My
> understanding is that `draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps` and
> `draft-ietf-pim-gaap` also contain host-side related content. Are these
> relevant to this article and can they be included here?
> 
> 2. IGMP/MLD Packet Requirements:
> RFC3376 and RFC3810 have been superseded by RFC9776 and RFC9777. Should the
> corresponding references in A.4.1 also be updated? RFC9777 (Section 5) has
> requirements for the source address/TTL of MLD packets. My understanding is
> that this also applies to the host. Should this requirement also be added to
> this draft?
> 
> 3. Possible typos
> Section 10.8, if MLS snooping -> if MLD snooping
> 
> 

-- 
---
[email protected]

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