Hi Hooman, other authors, and AD*, Hooman - Thanks for the quick reply. All of our questions have been addressed.
All authors - Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. *Gunter, as AD, please review and approve the following changes, which are above editorial. These are best viewed in this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-auth48diff.html. - Change from “must” to “MUST” in last sentence of first paragraph in Section 3.5 (corresponds with “MUST” in previous sentence) - Change in last sentence of second paragraph in Section 3.5 - Change in second paragraph in Section 5 (author explanation: I think we should remove "PIM-SSM and" here. PIM-SM Join/Prune messages are also used both for SSM and not SSM and the security implications are the same.) — FILES (please refresh) — Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.xml Updated output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.html Diff file showing changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-alt-diff.html (shows changes where text is moved or deleted) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9739 Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Feb 12, 2025, at 12:59 PM, Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) > <hooman.bidg...@nokia.com> wrote: > > Hello > > Inline > > Thanks > Hooman > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:29 PM > To: Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) <hooman.bidg...@nokia.com>; Mankamana Mishra > (mankamis) <mankamis=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Stig Venaas (svenaas) > <sven...@cisco.com>; s...@cisco.com; zzh...@juniper.com; > michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; pim-...@ietf.org; > pim-cha...@ietf.org; zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org; Rebecca > VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 <draft-ietf-pim-light-11> for your review > > [You don't often get email from rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org. Learn why > this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking > links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional > information. > > > > Hi Hooman, Stig, and Mankamana, > > Thank you for your replies; we have updated the document accordingly (see > files below). We have two followup questions: > > A) Please confirm “network” is okay in these sentences. We ask because we see > "BIER domain" (rather than “BIER network”) elsewhere in the document. > > Current: > ...such as Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) networks > that connect two or more PIM domains. > ... > An example is a Bit Index Explicit > Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] network connecting multiple PIM > domains, where PIM Join/Prune messages are tunneled via BIER as > specified in [BIER-PIM]. > > HB> I think in this paragraph it is fine to say BIER network connecting > multiple PIM domains. > > B) The following was missed in question #21. Should the capitalization of > this term be consistent? If so, let us know which form to use. > > DR Election vs. DR election > HB> lol this is a though one 😊 looking at RFC 7761 it is "DR election" 90% of > time but one location it says "DR Election" > HB> lets go with "DR election" please > > — FILES (please refresh) — > > HB> sorry what do you mean by refresh? Is there action here for the authors? > Or we should just review it. > Updated XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.xml > > Updated output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.html > > Diff file showing changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-alt-diff.html (shows changes > where text is moved or deleted) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9739 > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/rv > > > >> On Feb 11, 2025, at 5:00 PM, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) >> <mankamis=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> Changes looks good to me. From: Stig Venaas (svenaas) >> <sven...@cisco.com> >> Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 at 4:15 PM >> To: Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) <hooman.bidg...@nokia.com>, >> rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, s...@cisco.com >> <s...@cisco.com>, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <manka...@cisco.com>, >> zzh...@juniper.com <zzh...@juniper.com>, michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com >> <michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com> >> Cc: pim-...@ietf.org <pim-...@ietf.org>, pim-cha...@ietf.org >> <pim-cha...@ietf.org>, zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn >> <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn>, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) >> <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >> <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> >> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 <draft-ietf-pim-light-11> for your >> review Hi RFC Editor and Hooman >> >> Please see my comments inline. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) <hooman.bidg...@nokia.com> >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 3:10 PM >>> To: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; s...@cisco.com; Mankamana Mishra >>> (mankamis) <manka...@cisco.com>; zzh...@juniper.com; >>> michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com >>> Cc: pim-...@ietf.org; pim-cha...@ietf.org; zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn; >>> Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; >>> auth48archive@rfc- editor.org >>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 <draft-ietf-pim-light-11> for >>> your review >>> Importance: High >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> My comments Inline, thanks for detail suggestions! >>> Co-authors any comments on my suggestions pls? >>> >>> Do I need to submit a version 12 of draft with the changes? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Hooman >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> >>> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 11:45 PM >>> To: Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) <hooman.bidg...@nokia.com>; >>> s...@cisco.com; manka...@cisco.com; zzh...@juniper.com; >>> michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com >>> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; pim-...@ietf.org; >>> pim-cha...@ietf.org; zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn; Gunter van de Velde >>> (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 <draft-ietf-pim-light-11> for >>> your review >>> >>> >>> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when >>> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for >>> additional information. >>> >>> >>> >>> Authors, >>> >>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as >>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>> >>> >>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear >>> in the >>> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >>> >>> >>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Abstract >>> >>> a) We updated the text starting with "which does not..." as follows >>> to improve readability; please review and let us know any concerns. >>> >>> Original: >>> This document specifies Protocol Independent Multicast Light (PIM >>> Light) and PIM Light Interface (PLI) which does not need PIM Hello >>> message to accept PIM Join/Prune messages. PLI can signal multicast >>> states over networks that can not support full PIM neighbor >>> discovery, as an example BIER networks that are connecting two or >>> more PIM domains. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> This document specifies Protocol Independent Multicast Light (PIM Light) >>> and the PIM Light Interface (PLI). A PLI does not need a PIM Hello >>> message to accept PIM Join/Prune messages, and it can signal multicast >>> states over networks that cannot support full PIM neighbor >>> discovery, such as Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) networks >>> that connect two or >>> more PIM domains. >>> >>> HB> ok with this. >>> >>> >>> b) Should "protocol and procedures" be updated to just "procedures" >>> as in the Introduction? >>> >>> Original: >>> This document outlines the PIM >>> Light protocol and procedures to ensure loop-free multicast traffic >>> between two or more PIM Light routers. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> This document outlines PIM >>> Light procedures to ensure loop-free multicast traffic >>> between two or more PIM Light routers. >>> HB> my vote is to keep it as protocol and procedures. The doc talks >>> HB> about >>> both. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 3) <!-- [rfced] This is a sentence fragment. How may we update to >>> make a complete sentence? Also, please confirm that "network" is >>> intended here; elsewhere in the document, we see "BIER domain" >>> rather than "BIER network". >>> >>> Original: >>> For example, in a Bit Index Explicit >>> Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] networks connecting multiple PIM >>> domains, where PIM Join/Prune messages are tunneled via BIER as >>> specified in [draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling]. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> An example is a Bit Index Explicit >>> Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] network connecting multiple PIM >>> domains, where PIM Join/Prune messages are tunneled via BIER as >>> specified in [BIER-PIM]. >>> >>> HB> This text looks good. >>> >>> Or: >>> For example, in a Bit Index Explicit >>> Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] network connecting multiple PIM >>> domains, PIM Join/Prune messages are tunneled via BIER as >>> specified in [draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling]. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify the text starting with "to >>> ensure...". Also, is "reviver" correct? Or is "receiver" or something else >>> intended? >>> >>> Original: >>> As an example >>> the implementation should ensure that DR election is done on upstream >>> Redundant PIM routers that are at the edge of the PIM Light Domain to >>> ensure a single Designated Router to forward the PIM Join message >>> from reviver to the Source. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> As an example, >>> the implementation should ensure that DR election is done on upstream >>> redundant PIM routers that are at the edge of the PIM Light domain to >>> ensure that a single DR forwards the PIM Join message >>> from the receiver to the source. >>> HB> looks good. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We reordered the list in Section 3.1 by type >>> number as only one was out of order. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Is the text starting with "from the..." needed here? >>> Other entries in the list do not have such notes, and in the IANA >>> registry (linked to in the text introducing this list), RFC 7761 is >>> listed as a reference for type 3. See >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/. >>> >>> Original: >>> 1. type 3 (Join/Prune) from the ALL-PIM-ROUTERS message types listed >>> in [RFC7761]. >>> >>> Current: >>> * type 3 (Join/Prune) (Note that this type is from the ALL-PIM- >>> ROUTERS message types listed in [RFC7761].) >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> * type 3 (Join/Prune) >>> >>> HB> I agree I am not sure why we are saying "from the >>> HB> ALL-PIM-ROUTERS" as >>> that is a multicast address. >>> HB> I am ok with type 3 (Join/Prune). Unless there is a counter thought. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 7) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated "13" to "13.0" to match the >>> registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/. >>> >>> Original: >>> type 13 (PIM Packed Null-Register) >>> >>> Updated: >>> type 13.0 (PIM Packed Null-Register) >>> HB> ok >>> --> >> >> This really must be 13.0 but it still says 13 in the new version and diffs >> provided. >> >>> >>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Is "unicast destination IP" correct here, or should >>> it be "unicast destination IP addresses" (with "addresses")? >>> >>> Original: >>> 7. Any future PIM message types that use unicast destination IP. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> * Any future PIM message types that use unicast destination IP addresses. >>> HB> ok with this suggestion. >>> --> >> >> A given message will have only a single destination, so it seems a bit odd >> to me to use plural here. Maybe it can says "Any future PIM message types >> where the destination is a unicast IP address"? >> >> >>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Will readers know what both instances of "it" refer >>> to in the text "it SHOULD NOT process a join message containing it"? >>> >>> Original: >>> As such, PIM Light is unaware of its neighbor's >>> capability to process join attributes and it SHOULD NOT process a >>> join message containing it. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> As such, PIM Light is unaware of its neighbor's >>> capability to process join attributes and SHOULD NOT process a >>> Join message containing a join attribute. >>> HB> ok with suggestion >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 10) <!-- [rfced] We note that the sentence below in Section 3.2.2 >>> uses "PIM networks" but the figure uses "PIM domain". Are any updates >>> needed? >>> >>> Original: >>> For instance, in a BIER domain connecting two PIM networks, a PLI can >>> be used between BIER edge routers solely for multicast state >>> communication and transmit only PIM Join/Prune messages. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> For instance, in a BIER domain connecting two PIM domains, a PLI can >>> be used between BIER edge routers solely for multicast state >>> communication and transmit only PIM Join/Prune messages. >>> HB> ok with suggestions >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "An example DR election could be DR >>> election". >>> >>> Original: >>> An example DR election could be DR election between router D and F in >>> above figure. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> For example, DR election could be between router D and F in >>> above figure. >>> HB> ok with suggestion >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 12) <!-- [rfced] In Sections 3.2.2 and 3.4, we recommend including >>> text to introduce figure. >>> >>> In Section 3.2.2, perhaps the second paragraph can be moved before >>> the figure and first sentence of that paragraph updated in one of >>> the following ways. >>> >>> Original: >>> For instance, in a BIER domain connecting two PIM networks, a PLI can >>> be used between BIER edge routers solely for multicast state >>> communication and transmit only PIM Join/Prune messages. >>> >>> Perhaps (add "as in the figure below"): >>> For instance, in a BIER domain connecting two PIM networks as >>> in the figure below, a PLI can >>> be used between BIER edge routers solely for multicast state >>> communication and transmit only PIM Join/Prune messages. >>> >>> Or (use two sentences): >>> For instance, the figure below depicts a BIER domain connecting >>> two PIM networks. A PLI can >>> be used between BIER edge routers solely for multicast state >>> communication and transmit only PIM Join/Prune messages. >>> HB> I can see how it is better to have both paragraphs after each >>> HB> other >>> followed by the figure. >>> HB> I suggest: >>> HB> For instance, in a BIER domain connecting two PIM domains as >>> in the figure below, a PLI can >>> be used between BIER edge routers solely for multicast state >>> communication and transmit only PIM Join/Prune messages. >>> >>> In Section 3.4, perhaps the last paragraph can be moved before the >>> figure and updated as follows. >>> >>> Original: >>> In another example, where the PLI is configured automatically between >>> the BIER Edge Routers (BER), when the downstream BIER Edge Router >>> (DBER) is no longer reachable on the upstream BIER Edge Router >>> (UBER), the UBER which is also a PIM Light Router can prune the <S,G> >>> advertised toward the source on the PIM domain to stop the >>> transmission of the multicast stream. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> In another example, the PLI is configured automatically between >>> the BIER Edge Routers (BERs) as in the figure below. When the >>> downstream BIER Edge Router >>> (DBER) is no longer reachable on the upstream BIER Edge Router >>> (UBER), the UBER (which is also a PIM Light router) can prune the <S,G> >>> advertised toward the source on the PIM domain to stop the >>> transmission of the multicast stream. >>> >>> HB> following the previous example ok with this suggestion. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 13) <!-- [rfced] May we move the text "to prevent multicast stream >>> duplication" as follows to improve readability? >>> >>> Original: >>> If there >>> are redundant PIM routers at the edge of the BIER domain, to prevent >>> multicast stream duplication, they MUST establish PIM adjacency as >>> per [RFC7761] to ensure DR election at the edge of BIER domain. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> If there >>> are redundant PIM routers at the edge of the BIER domain, they MUST >>> establish PIM adjacency as per [RFC7761] to prevent multicast stream >>> duplication and to ensure DR election at the edge of the BIER domain. >>> >>> HB> ok with suggestion. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 14) <!-- [rfced] We updated this sentence as follows; please review >>> and let us know any concerns. >>> >>> Original: >>> If a router >>> supports PIM Light, only when PLI is enabled on an interface, >>> arriving Join/Prune messages MUST be processed, otherwise they MUST >>> be dropped. >>> >>> Updated: >>> If a router supports PIM Light, arriving Join/Prune messages MUST be >>> processed only when a PLI is enabled on an interface; otherwise, they MUST >>> be dropped. >>> >>> HB> Ok >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 15) <!-- [rfced] This sentence does not parse. We updated as >>> follows. Let us know any concerns. >>> >>> Original: >>> While on some logical interfaces PLI maybe enabled >>> automatically or via an underlying mechanism, as an example the >>> logical interface connecting two or more BIER edge routers in a BIER >>> subdomain [draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling]. >>> >>> Updated: >>> PLI may be enabled automatically or via an underlying mechanism on some >>> logical interfaces (for example, the logical interface connecting two or >>> more BIER edge routers in a BIER subdomain [BIER-PIM]). >>> >>> HB> I suggest the following >>> >>> In some cases, PKI maybe enabled automatically via an underlying >>> mechanisms on some logical interface. For example, in a BIER domain >>> a logical interface can connect two or more BIER edge routers as per >>> [draft-ietf-bier- pim-signaling]. >>> --> >> >> I think this should be: >> In some cases, PLI maybe enabled automatically via an underlying >> mechanism on a logical interface. For example, in a BIER domain, a >> logical interface can connect two or more BIER edge routers as per >> [draft-ietf-bier- pim-signaling]. >> >>> 16) <!-- [rfced] We confirmed that port 8471 is correct in this >>> sentence per the registry at >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers. >>> In the registry, we see that port 8471 is also for PORT with SCTP as >>> the transport protocol. This sentence just mentions TCP, though SCTP >>> is mentioned in the next sentence. Are any updates needed? >>> >>> Original: >>> For TCP, PIM over reliable transport (PORT) uses port 8471 >>> which is assigned by IANA. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 17) <!-- [rfced] The first sentence below uses "MUST", but the >>> second uses "must" >>> (although it says "the same is true"). Please review and let us know >>> if any updates are needed. >>> >>> Original: >>> [RFC6559] mentions that when a >>> router is configured to use PIM over TCP on a given interface, it >>> MUST include the PIM-over-TCP-Capable Hello Option in its Hello >>> messages for that interface. The same is true for SCTP and the >>> router must include PIM-over-SCTP-Capable Hello Option in its Hello >>> message on that interface. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> [RFC6559] mentions that when a >>> router is configured to use PIM over TCP on a given interface, it >>> MUST include the PIM-over-TCP-Capable Hello Option in its Hello >>> messages for that interface. The same is true for SCTP; the >>> router MUST include the PIM-over-SCTP-Capable Hello Option in its Hello >>> message on that interface. >>> >>> HB> here is a new suggestion for 16 and 17 >>> [RFC6559] defines a reliable transport mechanism called PIM over >>> reliable transport (PORT) for PIM transmission >>> of Join/Prune messages, using either TCP or SCTP as transport >>> protocol. Both TCP and SCTP use destination port number of 8471. >>> SCTP is explained in [RFC9260], and it is >>> used as a second option for PORT. [RFC6559] mentions that when a >>> router is configured to use PIM over TCP on a given interface, it >>> MUST include the PIM-over-TCP-Capable Hello Option in its Hello >>> messages for that interface. The same is true for SCTP and the >>> router MUST include PIM-over-SCTP-Capable Hello Option in its Hello >>> message on that interface. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand "Connection ID IP address >>> comparison"? >>> What is being compared? >>> >>> Original: >>> When the router is using SCTP, the Connection ID IP address >>> comparison need not be done since the SCTP can handle call >>> collision. >>> >>> HB> here is suggestion for better read >>> >>> These Hello options contain a Connection ID which is an IPv4 or IPv6 >>> address used to establish the SCTP or TCP connection. For PORT using >>> TCP, the connection ID is used for determining which peer is doing an >>> active transport open to the neighbor and which peer is doing passive >>> transport open, as per section 4 of [RFC6559. When the router is using >>> SCTP, >>> the Connection ID is not used to determine the active and passive >>> peer since the SCTP protocol can handle call >>> collision. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 19) <!-- [rfced] This sentence in Section 3.5 explains that a >>> Connection ID is an >>> IPv4 or IPv6 address used to establish the SCTP or TCP connection: >>> >>> Original >>> These Hello options contain a Connection ID which is an IPv4 or IPv6 >>> address used to establish the SCTP or TCP connection. >>> >>> The sentence below appears in the next paragraph. Should the text >>> starting with "Connection ID IPv4 or IPv6 addresses..." be updated >>> for consistency with the previous text? >>> >>> Original: >>> PIM Light lacks Hello messages, the PLI can be configured with the >>> Connection ID IPv4 or IPv6 addresses used to establish the SCTP or >>> TCP connection. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Because PIM Light lacks Hello messages, the PLI can be configured with the >>> Connection ID (i.e., the IPv4 or IPv6 address used to establish the SCTP >>> or >>> TCP connection). >>> HB> ok with this option. >>> >>> Or: >>> Because PIM Light lacks Hello messages, the PLI can be configured with the >>> Connection ID. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 20) <!-- [rfced] Should "Source-Specific and Sparse Mode Join/Prune >>> messages" here be updated to "PIM-SSM and PIM-SM Join/Prune messages"? >>> >>> Original: >>> Furthermore, because PIM Light can be used for signaling Source- >>> Specific and Sparse Mode Join/Prune messages, the security >>> considerations outlined in [RFC7761] and [RFC4607] SHOULD be >>> considered where appropriate. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Furthermore, because PIM Light can be used for signaling PIM-SSM >>> and PIM-SM Join/Prune messages, the security >>> considerations outlined in [RFC7761] and [RFC4607] SHOULD be >>> considered where appropriate. >>> HB> ok with this >> >> I think we should remove "PIM-SSM and" here. PIM-SM Join/Prune messages are >> also used both for SSM and not SSM and the security implications are the >> same. Hence, I think it should just say: >> >> Furthermore, because PIM Light can be used for signaling PIM-SM >> Join/Prune messages, the security considerations outlined in [RFC7761] and >> [RFC4607] SHOULD be considered where appropriate. >> >> Hooman/authors, do you see any specific implications to SSM? I don't see >> any, but if you do, I suggest adding that in a separate sentence. >> >> That is my last comment. I'm fine with all the suggested changes and >> Hooman's comments otherwise. >> >> Thanks, >> Stig >> >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 21) <!-- [rfced] Terminology >>> >>> a) These terms are used inconsistently throughout the text. Should >>> these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is preferred. >>> >>> DR Election vs. DR election >>> <S,G> vs. (S,G) >>> >>> HB> thanks! They should be (S,G) every where. >>> >>> b) We also note inconsistencies in the terms listed below. We chose >>> the form on the right. Please let us know any objections. >>> >>> PIM Light Router vs. PIM Light router PIM Light Domain vs. PIM Light >>> domain connection ID vs Connection ID Source vs. source join message >>> vs. Join message join/prune message vs. Join/Prune message >>> >>> HB> agreed thanks! >>> >>> c) Should "join attribute" be capitalized per usage in RFC 5384? >>> >>> HB> yes it should. >>> >>> d) Article usage (e.g., "a" and "the") with "PIM Light Interface" and "PLI" >>> was mixed. We added articles in some instances. Please review for >>> correctness. >>> >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 22) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of >>> the online Style Guide >>> <https://w/ >>> ww.rfc-%2F&data=05%7C02%7Chooman.bidgoli%40nokia.com%7C20eb5efdb6c34 >>> 817955f08dd4b931f11%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C638 >>> 749817917683416%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYi >>> OiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0 >>> %7C%7C%7C&sdata=WdZ7WbxxiVTmXe%2FI2OeOacrmRWORjUU2alcgK4Mbflc%3D&res >>> erved=0 editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature >>> typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >>> >>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this >>> should still be reviewed as a best practice. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> RFC Editor/rv >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 10, 2025, at 8:38 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2025/02/10 >>> >>> RFC Author(s): >>> -------------- >>> >>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>> >>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >>> >>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your >>> approval. >>> >>> Planning your review >>> --------------------- >>> >>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>> >>> * RFC Editor questions >>> >>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>> follows: >>> >>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>> >>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>> >>> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>> >>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >>> >>> * Content >>> >>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>> - contact information >>> - references >>> >>> * Copyright notices and legends >>> >>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >>> >>> * Semantic markup >>> >>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >>> >>> * Formatted output >>> >>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>> >>> >>> Submitting changes >>> ------------------ >>> >>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as >>> all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The >>> parties >>> include: >>> >>> * your coauthors >>> >>> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) >>> >>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>> >>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list >>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>> list: >>> >>> * More info: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh- >>> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>> >>> * The archive itself: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >>> >>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and >>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>> >>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>> >>> An update to the provided XML file >>> — OR — >>> An explicit list of changes in this format >>> >>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>> >>> OLD: >>> old text >>> >>> NEW: >>> new text >>> >>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an >>> explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>> >>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that >>> seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, >>> deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream >>> managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require >>> approval from a stream manager. >>> >>> >>> Approving for publication >>> -------------------------- >>> >>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email >>> stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use >>> ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your >>> approval. >>> >>> >>> Files >>> ----- >>> >>> The files are available here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739.txt >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-rfcdiff.html (side by >>> side) >>> >>> Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where >>> text has been deleted or moved): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-alt-diff.html >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9739-xmldiff1.html >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9739 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9739 (draft-ietf-pim-light-11) >>> >>> Title : Protocol Independent Multicast Light (PIM Light) >>> Author(s) : H. Bidgoli, S. Venaas, M. Mishra, Z. Zhang, M. McBride >>> WG Chair(s) : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride >>> >>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
