Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-08
Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review Date: 27 Febrary 2023
IETF LC End Date: 2 March 2023
Intended Status: Standards

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
3.2 
"..., otherwise it is 0." What does "it" indicate?

3.3
How to understand this "layer" mentioned in the following text?
"Instead, sending and receiving of PackedAssert messages as specified in the following subsections is logically a layer in between sending/receiving of Assert messages and serialization/deserialization of their respective packets."

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.

Nits:

Abstract
As PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM), the term "PIM-SSM" is better to be expanded as well. 

1. Introduction
It would be better to expand "RP" on its first use. 

2. Problem statement
s/occur/occurs

3.1 
"PIM Hello Assert Packing Option" or "PIM Assert Packing Hello Option"?

3.2 
(S,G) are better to be expanded. 
Maybe in the following text "...Source Address (S), Group Address (G)...". 

s/P)acked/(P)

It would be better to start a paragraph from "If the (P) flag is 2, ..."

3.3
s/encoding/encodings

3.3.1
s/packe/pack
s/Threrefore/Therefore