Hi Éric, all, I've just updated the shepherd write-up as requested.
Thanks, Carlos On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 8:52 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, AD review for > draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port-06 > CC @evyncke > > Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below my AD > review. > > As the responsible AD, I expect all the points below to be addressed, > either by a revised I-D, or an email reply. Of course, authors and WG can > reject my points, but this needs to be justified. Once all the points are > addressed, I will proceed with the publication process, i.e., IETF Last > Call. > > Special thanks to Carlos Bernardos for the shepherd's detailed write-up > including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. > > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > Note: this AD reviews follows the Markdown syntax of > https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be > processed by a tool to create github issues. > > ## Critical issues > > ### Updating shepherd's write-up > > As the Q9 was addressed in revision -06, the write-up should be updated. > > Q11 should also be updated to state that PS is required for interoperation > between source and members. > > ### Abstract > > s/The document *proposes assigning* a UDP port/The document *assigns* a > UDP port/, be assertive as it will be published as PS. > > ### Section 1 > > Please add informative references to ASM and SSM. > > Perhaps ? s/source address and destination multicast address /source > *unicast* address and destination multicast address / ? > > It is unclear (at least to me) what is `with a unicast port` in the last > paragraph, is it a unicast post assigned to the application ? or ? Let's be > clear. > > ### Section 6 > > Why not a MUST in `rules referencing the Multicast Application Port SHOULD > also consider the destination multicast address` ? > > ### Section 7 > > What is meant by `ask if the Multicast Application Port may be used` ? > I.e., to whom should the IANA ask the question ? > > ## Non-critical / cosmetic issues > > Note: these points must also be addressed. > > ### Note about IPv4/IPv6 > > Suggest adding a simple note in the introduction stating that this > technique applies both for IPv6 and IPv4. > > ### Section 2 > > s/the Multicast Application Port SHALL NOT be used/the Multicast > Application Port *MUST** NOT be used/ while SHALL/MUST are equivalent per > BCP14, I find "MUST" more obvious. It is a matter of taste, feel free to > leave as it is. > > >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
