Explicit Multicast (Xcast) Concepts and Options
draft-ooms-xcast-basic-spec-13

IANA Evaluation Comments:

The IANA consideration section is ***not*** clear on
what actions are requested of IANA.

No IANA Considerations section but registrations
observed in the document.

[Ballot discuss]
This is excellent and potentially very useful work.
However, I would like to discuss how to move forward
with regards to the proposed allocation of IPv4 and
IPv6 protocol numbers and IPv6 destination options.
This Discuss is related to Lars' Discuss, but expands
a little bit on it.

The first problem is that the document is unclear
about the allocations. This must be fixed, because
the bar for even independent submissions is that
IANA needs to know what to allocate (at least as
far as existing registries are concerned).

The second problem is whether the numbers can
be allocated.

The protocol number allocation rule is Expert Review
(for NDA only), IESG Review, or Standards Action.
So in theory we have the possibility to grant a
request. However, I believe the bar for granting
such a request should be very high.

Can the document be changed to employ the
experimental code points defined in RFC 4727?
Or are there existing values that could be
used? Or, can we get an understanding how
this is intended to be deployed and what
the world-wide interest is, so that we can
evaluate whether an allocation is appropriate?

Finally, if a new allocation is made, it might
be more appropriate to bring this to the IETF,
at least as AD sponsored.

[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations section of this document has a single sentence referring to a draft
that expired in December 2002.  While I would not expect the authors to reproduce the content
of that 18 page draft, I believe a summary of the security considerations applicable to explicit
multicast is needed.

[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations section of this document has a single sentence referring to a draft that expired in December 2002.  While I would not expect the authors to reproduce the content of that 18 page draft, I believe a summary of the security considerations applicable to explicit multicast is needed.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 9.2.1., paragraph 1:
>  The Xcast4 header is carried on top of an IP header.  The IP header
>  will carry the protocol number PROTO_Xcast.  The source address field
>  contains the address of the Xcast sender.  The destination address
>  field carries the All_Xcast_Routers address.

  DISCUSS: PROTO_Xcast and All_Xcast_Routers don't seem to be allocated
  by IANA. Is this document requesting an allocations? It doesn't have
  an IANA considerations section. Or, because as the abstract states,
  this document "does not provide a complete technical specification",
  maybe clarify that no IANA request are being made in this document and
  these values remain unassigned.

[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations section of this document has a single sentence referring to a draft that expired in December 2002.  While I would not expect the authors to reproduce the content of that 18 page draft, I believe a summary of the security considerations applicable to explicit multicast is needed.

[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations section of this document has a single sentence referring to a draft that expired in December 2002.  While I would not expect the authors to reproduce the content of that 18 page draft, I believe a summary of the security considerations applicable to explicit multicast is needed.