Document: draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2008-11-05 IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-13 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication. I have a few fairly minor concerns that I think should be addressed prior to publication, and some editorial nits. Substantive Comments: -- It is not clear to me why this is to be an informational RFC. It seems to be defining protocol. If that protocol is not intended to be a standard, then it would help to have an applicability statement to that effect. -- Section 4: The IANA considerations section needs a little more information. Is this attribute to be added to an existing registry? Is a new registry needed? -- Section 5: The security considerations section implies that adding this new Vector creates no new security considerations beyond those in RFC4601. I am not qualified to hold an opinion whether this is true or not--has the working group explicitly thought about it? Editorial Comments: -- IDNITS reports that there is no RFC 2119 reference or boilerplate, but there is at least one use of normative language (2.3.4). -- There are a number of acronyms that should be expanded on first use. I would not worry about expanding acronyms that are well known to the entire IETF community (e.g. TCP), but acronyms that are not widely known outside the BGP community probably should be. -- Section 2, first sentence: Who is the "we" in this context? A edge router? (This is not a complaint about 2nd person language in general so much as a concern about the actor being obscured.) The pattern of saying "we" or "our" referring to a network element taking some particular action occurs a few more times in the document. It would be better to simply name the element. -- Section 2.3.4, first paragraph: s/depending/dependent -- IDNITS reports that the reference to draft-ietf-pim-join- attributes-03 is outdated. There is an 06 as of the time of this review.