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

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:47:12 -0700

Alissa Cooper 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'm guessing this is unnecessary but just wanted to check: do you need a
further extension point in case all 48 subtypes of types 13, 14, and 15 get
used up at some point? That is, RFC 6166 had reserved a code point for future
extensions of the type space. Is it possible that another future extension will
be needed and if so, should a code point be reserved for it?