Carlos, Thanks for the feedback! We uploaded version 06 to address your comments (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port/). Please see below for individual replies (marked [NK]).
Cheers, Nate From: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 09:42 To: [email protected] Cc: int-area <[email protected]> Subject: [Int-area] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port-05 Hi, I have completed my shepherd review of draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port-05. The document is in good shape overall. I have two minor comments for the authors to consider before we proceed. (1) In the last paragraph before Section Hi, I have completed my shepherd review of draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port-05. The document is in good shape overall. I have two minor comments for the authors to consider before we proceed. (1) In the last paragraph before Section 1.1, the sentence "An application may use this port in conjunction with a unicast port to balance out deficiencies related to multicast distribution" uses "may" in lowercase. If the intent is to grant explicit permission (i.e., a normative MAY per BCP 14), it should be capitalized. If it is purely descriptive, lowercase is fine, but it would be good if the authors could confirm their intent. [NK] There are good arguments for either approach. In the balance, given that other places in the document discuss using a different port for the source port, it seems to make the most sense to change this to MAY. We also made this paragraph use two sentence to contrast the differing (but related) ideas. (2) The term "Multicast Application Port" is used as a proper noun throughout the document (including in the title) but is never formally introduced or defined. A short definitional sentence early in Section 1 or Section 2, such as "This port is referred to in this document as the Multicast Application Port", would improve clarity. [NK] The third paragraph of the introduction introduces the term, though in a manner that perhaps not as explicit as what you’re suggesting: …this document assigns a UDP port that may be used with multicast applications: the Multicast Application Port. I tried out some alternatives using the wording you suggested, but the phrase “in this document” seemed to imply that it might be referred to differently elsewhere, which may cause more confusion in the end. So, I left it unchanged for now, but we can continue exploring this if you would like. Neither comment is a blocker. Happy to discuss. Carlos -- CARLOS J. BERNARDOS https://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/__;!!EJc4YC3iFmQ!RMo14NjfEpDmRvHgQwV37LykeOVsFFHubzXnP87L26zSkIPRPKdRu7OoASgLZuacTueTJAg9XOp7G6n5kQ$> Universidad Carlos III de Madrid RTS/CTS podcast: https://castopod.cjbc.eu/@RTSCTS<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/castopod.cjbc.eu/@RTSCTS__;!!EJc4YC3iFmQ!RMo14NjfEpDmRvHgQwV37LykeOVsFFHubzXnP87L26zSkIPRPKdRu7OoASgLZuacTueTJAg9XOoqC6Lg8w$> YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/CacharREDando/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/CacharREDando/__;!!EJc4YC3iFmQ!RMo14NjfEpDmRvHgQwV37LykeOVsFFHubzXnP87L26zSkIPRPKdRu7OoASgLZuacTueTJAg9XOp6t0PI2A$> ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be Garmin confidential and/or Garmin legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication (including attachments) by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
