Subject: [pim] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:30:36 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-03: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits/

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

I support Barry Leiba’s DISCUSS position on clarifying the structure of the
IANA table.  I would add that the convention of using the decimal point to
convey a sub-type number should be explained (i.e., 13.4 is type=13, sub-type=4)

Editorial Nits:
-- Per Page Title.  Typo.  s/Type Extention/Extension/

-- Section 3. Typo.  s/FIgure 1/Figure 1/

-- Section 4.2.  Unlike Section 4.1 and 4.3, this section doesn’t say “The
usage of the bit is defined in that document”.

-- Section 5.  Capitalize. s/pim extension/PIM extensions/

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 17:10:10 +0000

On September 16, 2019 at 11:30:46 AM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker ([email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>) wrote:

[Author hat on.]

Roman:

Hi!  Thanks for the review!

Good point!

Editorial Nits:

I made changes in my working copy.

Thanks!

Alvaro.