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