I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-03.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia Review Date: 2012-06-11 IETF LC End Date: 2012-06-12 IESG Telechat date: 2012-06-21 Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC. Major issues: none Minor issues: none Nits/editorial comments: - The Abstract should not include references. Just delete "[RFC4601]". - Perhaps this is a matter of personal taste... but Section 3.5.2 is devoted to describe the format of the PIM ECMP Redirect message. I think this is a section where you should describe the format, but you shouldn't write normative statements as for what to do with those fields. For example, I am referring to statements like: Address of desired upstream neighbor where the downstream receiver SHOULD redirect PIM Joins the receiving router of this message MUST use the "Interface ID", instead of "Neighbor Address", to identify the new RPF neighbor an ECMP Redirect message MUST be discarded if the "Interface ID" field... I think all these sentences including a normative MUST, SHOULD, etc. should be written in Sections 3.1. or 3.2 (Procedures). This means that the format (current section 3.5) should be moved to a place prior to 3.1 and 3.2, because the procedures needs to explain what to do with all these fields. /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain