Subject: [pim] AD review draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:41:23 +0100

Hi,

Thank you for this document. I have done my usual AD review to find any
issues before taking the document to IETF last call and IESG evaluation.

In this case I have only a few minor issues that I have captured below.
Since they are so small, I will enter them as IETF last call comments
and we don't need to hold the work up any further at this time.

Thanks,
Adrian

===

I think your core reference [6] is supposed to refer to RFC 2236 for the
core definition of IGMPv2. That RFC certainly matches the name of the
document you have given.

[Hint: idnits is your friend!]

---

idnits complains about the 2119 boiler plate because you are missing a
space in
  "RECOMMENDED","MAY",

---

Section 1 contains a clumsy sentence

   To alleviate the problem, unsolicited
   report messages are transmitted the [Robustness Variable] times
   (defined in [2][3]).

How about

   To alleviate this problem, unsolicited
   report messages are retransmitted a number of times according to the
   value of the [Robustness Variable] defined in [2] and [3].

---

Section 3

While *everyone* knows what S and G stand for, you should still say.

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:38:06 +0900 (JST)

Hi Adrian,

> and we don't need to hold the work up any further at this time.

I'll address your comments as well as other comments that will be
given during the LC.
Thank you very much.

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim