Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-14
review-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-14-opsdir-lc-ersue-2014-02-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-02-04
Requested 2014-01-09
Authors François Le Faucheur , Roberta Maglione , Tom Taylor
I-D last updated 2014-02-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -14 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Dacheng Zhang (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -14 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mehmet Ersue
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready
Completed 2014-02-02
review-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-14-opsdir-lc-ersue-2014-02-02-00

I have reviewed the document "Multicast Control Extensions for ANCP"
(draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-14) as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all
 IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written
 primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.  Document editors
 and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
 comments.



Intended status: Standards Track

Current draft status: IESG Evaluation

IANA Review State: IANA OK - Actions Needed

IANA Action State: None



The draft is: Ready



Summary: The document specifies the extensions to the ANCP protocol required
for support of the multicast use cases defined in the ANCP framework document
and one additional
 use case in this document. The use cases are organized into ANCP capabilities.
 The document updates RFC 6320 with a capability.



The document is well-written and thorough concerning the usual requirements for
protocol extension specifications.

I don't see any real issues from the operations and management pov.



Though, it might be in general interesting for such protocol specifications to
have a discussion on, e.g.:



- configuration parameter and useful default values for buffering, timer
values, etc.

- protocol scalability and

- whether the protocol extensions increase the traffic load, which can be an
issue for multicast especially if dynamic sharing of bandwidth between unicast
and multicast video
 traffic on each access line is done.



The document has 1 nit comment:



  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'PIMreg'



Mehmet