(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this
type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard. Standards Track is indicated on the draft and is appropriate
particularly with the update to the PIM Message Types registry.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
The currently defined PIM version 2 messages share a common message
header format. The common header definition contains eight reserved
bits. This document specifies how these bits may be used by
individual message types, and creates a registry containing the per
message type usage. This document also extends the PIM type space by
defining three new message types.
Working Group Summary
There was very thorough review by several WG members. There were a few
comments and all were addressed to the wg's satisfaction.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one
that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date
was the request posted?
Not really applicable here as its updating a registry
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Mike McBride is the documet shepherd and Alvaro Retana is the
responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
This version is ready for publication and has been reviewed by the
shepherd and the co-chair.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. Thorough reviews were performed.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The document as a whole has been understood and we had many
individuals respond on the list with a show of support from various
vendors and research institutes.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No other formal review other then the PIM WG.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
This document Updates RFC7761 and RFC3973 by defining the use of the
currently Reserved field in the PIM common header. This document
further updates RFC7761 and RFC3973, along with RFC5015, RFC6754 and
RFC8364, by specifying the use of the currently Reserved bits for
each PIM message
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
Updates to the referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
The following changes should be made to the existing PIM Message
For types 4 (Bootstrap) and 8 (Candidate RP Advertisement) a reference to
RFC5059 should be added. For the currently unassigned types 13 and 14,
and the reserved type 15, the name should be changed to "Type Space
Extension", and reference this document. In addition, right underneath each
of the rows for types 13, 14 and 15, there should be a new row where it
says "13.0-13.15 Unassigned", "14.0-14.15 Unassigned" and "15.0-15.15
A new registry called "PIM Message Type Flag Bits" should be created
in the pim-paremeters section with registration procedure "IETF
Venaas & Retana Expires December 27, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PIM reserved bits and type space extension June 2019
Review" as defined in [RFC8126] with this document as a reference.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.