Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:02:43 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 5-Aug-2011
IETF LC End Date: 12-Aug-2011
IESG Telechat date: 25-Aug-2011

Summary: This draft is ready as a PS.

Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:

I have a couple of questions that might or might not result in some 
changes to the document:

1) The document is talking about router identifier generation when IPv4 
is used. What about IPv6?

2)
5.  IANA Considerations

    IANA has temporarily assigned the value 31 for the Interface
    Identifier Hello option defined in this document.  IANA is requested
    to make this assignment permanent.

Is this instruction sufficiently clear for IANA? What is the name of the 
registry?

Note that ID-nits reports:

-- Duplicate reference: RFC4601, mentioned in 'HELLO-OPT', was also
      mentioned in 'RFC4601'.

But I believe this is a spurious error.

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:24:21 -0700

> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Thanks for the review, please see my responses below.

> is used. What about IPv6?

This was concidered, but decided that if you have a system with no
IPv4 addresses, a 32 bit identifier can be manually configured. It
does not have to match an IPv4 address, the only requirement is that
it is unique. This is a bit similar to Router ID in some other
routing protocols. E.g. BGP.

> Is this instruction sufficiently clear for IANA? What is the name of the

PIM-Hello Options registry of the Protocol Independent Multicast
(PIM) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xml

It could perhaps be made even clearer, but we are talking about PIM
and this is a Hello option as mentioned above.

IANA responded yesterday with their review, and they understood it.

> But I believe this is a spurious error.

Yes, because one is for the IANA registry, the other the RFC.

Stig