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

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:12:04 -0700

Éric Vyncke 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3 --
C.1) Is it "Flags Bits" (two "s") as in figure 1 or "Flag bits" (one "s") as in
the text ?

C.2) Shouldn't PIM Ver and Checksum fields be described?

-- Section 4.2 --
C.2) I am a tad inconfortable to have "bits" of a field named "flag bits" to be
used for sub-type. For me, "bits" are completely unstructured and atomic and
using 4 of those bits to build a 4-bit field does not seem natural. Rather than
naming the field "flags bits" what about "special purpose bits" or something
similar ?