Mallory, Thanks for the feedback! We uploaded a new version of the document that addresses the nits.
For the minor issue, I’m having trouble coming up with something that will address the minor issues you noted below. In particular: 1. It’s hard to say what types of messages would be appropriate for a given application. 2. It doesn’t seem like using different ports really serves as a security protection. If you have suggested text or can elaborate more that will be helpful 😊 Cheers, Nate From: Mallory Knodel via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 12:45 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port-07 ietf last call Genart review Document: draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port Title: The Multicast Application Port Reviewer: Mallory Knodel Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews Document: draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port Title: The Multicast Application Port Reviewer: Mallory Knodel Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ__;!!EJc4YC3iFmQ!Xi1CDyEKskCvMKmjd1VIQcANthw6v0Wr9u3-uVsZylnxvLYKzz1MrzU-1_ZM1VItqPO9BgPnUKT9p0P16g$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ__;!!EJc4YC3iFmQ!Xi1CDyEKskCvMKmjd1VIQcANthw6v0Wr9u3-uVsZylnxvLYKzz1MrzU-1_ZM1VItqPO9BgPnUKT9p0P16g$>>. Document: draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port-?? Reviewer: Mallory Knodel Review Date: 2026-06-22 IETF LC End Date: 2026-06-29 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is well written and easy to understand. Where there exists some ambiguity in the narrative text, I've attempted rewrites in the nits section below. I've included questions to be considered "minor issues". Major issues: None. Minor issue: It seems to me there might be a more general statement needed in the Intro, last paragraph: [MAY/SHOULD] NOT an application sending [multi/uni]cast messages also send [multi/uni]cast messages using a different destination port? (And what does using the Multicast Application Port as the destination port have to do with it, architecturally speaking?) You could also preview for the reader why a common port doesn't introduce privacy/security issues as that seems a curiosity worth an intro mention. Nits/editorial comments: The following are rephrasings that, if correct, might improve readability: * Intro, second para: The same applies to Source-Specific Multicast (SSM; see [RFC4607]) because of uniqueness when both source unicast address and destination multicast address are taken together. * Firewall considerations section, first para: just remove parentheticals in favour of sentence clauses, eg commas. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
