Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17
review-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-05-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-05-26
Requested 2014-05-15
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -14 by Mary Barnes (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -17 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Tsvdir Telechat review of -14 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Alexey Melnikov
Review review-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-05-26
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg10142.html
Reviewed rev. 17 (document currently at 18)
Review result Ready with Issues
Draft last updated 2014-05-26
Review completed: 2014-05-26

Review
review-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-05-26

I am the assigned 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 Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: May 26, 2014
IETF LC End Date: May 26, 2014

Summary:  Nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Major issues:


In the document, I am seeing:

5.1.1.1.  Version (V)

   [And in several other similar sections]

   The protocol version number for this message is 0.

5.2.3.2.  Handling AMT Messages

   A gateway that conforms to this specification MUST ignore any message
   with a Version field value other than zero.

5.3.3.1.  Handling AMT Messages

   A relay that conforms to this specification MUST ignore any message
   with a Version field value other than zero.





This might not actually be an issue, if it was discussed in the WG. But 


I am wondering if the WG thought about versioning, backward 


compatibility and other related issues.


How likely is it that a new version of AMT is going to be designed? At 


the moment the document reads like "we have a stub field for future 


versions, but we haven't thought about how they are going to be handled 


yet".





Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

5.3.3.4.  Handling a Membership Update Message

  o  The computed checksums for the encapsulated IP datagram and its
      payload MUST match the values contained therein.  Checksum
      computation and verification varies by protocol; See [RFC0791] for
      IPv4, [RFC3376] for IGMPv3, and [RFC4443] for MLD (ICMPv6).

Any recommendation for IPv6 or is it covered by one of the other choices?