Reviewer: Papadimitriou Dimitri Review result: Has Nits Couldn't find the template for experiment drafts, but I think this kind of documents deserve its specific template Summary: Points to be clarified are related to 1.the flooding boundary. The document refers to PIM domain defined in RFC 4601 " A domain in this context is a contiguous set of routers that all implement PIM and are configured to operate within a common boundary." And states " PFM messages are generally forwarded hop by hop to all PIM routers." what now defines a PIM domain: the PFM flooding boundary or the PIM execution domain. 2. Modified TLV (statement " Some TLVs may be omitted or modified in the forwarded message." - example a boundary router changes the Src Address in the GSH TLV to its own address - is that allowed/expected ? actually the document doesn't explain or justify the need to "modify" TLV in forwarded messages. 3. Section 4.2 states "In order to meet the timing requirements, sending of the message may have to be delayed a small amount of time." Quantify "small amount of time" Editorial: First paragraph first sentence: add reference to PIM-SM Second paragraph fifth sentence: add reference to SSM Last paragraph o) Refers to "parameters" please differentiate so-called architectural constants from configurable parameters. Cf.RFC 2328 for a good example. o) Suggest to write last paragraph as numbered points to facilitate their clearing as more experience from the field is being obtained. Dimitri