Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc1112bis/

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
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-rfc1112bis-07
Reviewer: Zheng(Sandy) Zhang
Review Date: 2026-02-06
Intended Status: Standards Track

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

Comments:
From routing perspective, I focus more on IGMP/MLD protocol-related content.
1. Application Scenarios: 
Does it relate to specific application scenarios? 
For example, when sending multicast packets and the local interface is also a receiver in that group, requiring loopback packet uploading, can this functionality be applied to scenarios similar to multicast emulation?
My understanding is that `draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps` and `draft-ietf-pim-gaap` also contain host-side related content. Are these relevant to this article and can they be included here?

2. IGMP/MLD Packet Requirements:
RFC3376 and RFC3810 have been superseded by RFC9776 and RFC9777. Should the corresponding references in A.4.1 also be updated?
RFC9777 (Section 5) has requirements for the source address/TTL of MLD packets. My understanding is that this also applies to the host. Should this requirement also be added to this draft?

3. Possible typos
Section 10.8, if MLS snooping -> if MLD snooping