Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Has Issues
OPS-DIR review
General comment: This is needed specification for PIM and clearly written.
Issue: Issue/Error in document
However, this document does not specify the error handling if a PIM implementation does
not abid by the MUSTs in section 4 defined as follows:
Unless otherwise specified, all the Flag Bits for each PIM type are
Reserved [RFC8126]. They MUST be set to zero on transmission, and
they MUST be ignored upon receipt. The specification of a new PIM
type, MUST indicate whether the bits should be treated differently.
This issues becomes a serious issue if it negates any error handling or changes
any existing error handling.
I suspect this is not really a serious issue, but a flaw in the write-up.
I suspect that because you set to zero on transmission, and
ignored on receipt you will not engage in any error handling.
However, it is necessary to state that so that machines testing
the PIM and SM-PIM protocols will easily add this to their testing suite.
2) Issue: Security considerations in general are the same as
[RFC7761] and {RFC3973], but bogus error handling (depending how you do #1)
may impact the security considerations.
3) Minor Issue: Should Section 3 include a change to RFC3973 - section 4.7.1
Editorial Issues:
It really help the reader trying to piece together the specifications to provide
an example reference point.
Since I looked each of these up:
Section 3: page 3, paragraph 1, RFC7761 - section 4.9
Section 4: page 3, paragraph 2. RFC8126 - section 6
Section 4.1: page 4, section 4.1, RFC5059, - section 5
Section 4.2: page 4, Section 4.2, RFC5015, - section 3.7.21
Section 4.3: page 4, section 5.3 RFC8364 - section 3.1
It would be helpful to the reader to provide sections numbers for the
references. If you would select other ref erences, it is further proof
that it would be useful to indicate which sections you are referring to.
