Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17

Request Review of draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-06-24
Requested 2014-06-05
Authors Gregory Bumgardner
I-D last updated 2014-11-28
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -14 by Mary Barnes (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -17 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -17 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Tsvdir Telechat review of -14 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Alexey Melnikov
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 18)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2014-11-28
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


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:  Version (V)

   [And in several other similar sections]

   The protocol version number for this message is 0.  Handling AMT Messages

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


Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:  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?