Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-10-14
Requested 2019-10-02
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Charles Perkins, Mike McBride, Dorothy Stanley, Warren Kumari, Juan-Carlos Zúñiga
Draft last updated 2019-10-15
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -09 by Gorry Fairhurst (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -09 by Tatuya Jinmei (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Tal Mizrahi (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Pete Resnick
Opsdir Telechat review of -11 by Dan Romascanu
Tsvart Telechat review of -11 by Gorry Fairhurst
I would appreciate your review of this document. It is not too long and covers many areas of the IETF.

Thank you for considering this request

-éric (INT AD)
Assignment Reviewer Tal Mizrahi
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09-rtgdir-lc-mizrahi-2019-10-15
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2019-10-15



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09
Reviewer: Tal Mizrahi
Review Date: 2019-10-15
Intended Status: Informational

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.

- The draft is clear and well-written.
- The scope of the document should be clearly specified in the abstract and
introduction. The title is a bit misleading, suggesting that the scope is
IEEE 802 wireless media in general, while most of the document is focused
on 802.11, with Section 6 briefly discussing non-dot-11 standards. Please
clarify that the document is focused on 802.11.
- Throughout the document there is no clear distinction between multicast
and broadcast. Please add an explanation about whether there is a
difference between how IEEE 802.11 handles broadcast vs. multicast.
Throughout the document: please be clear about whether you are referring to
multicast, broadcast or to both.
- The Security Considerations section needs more work. For example:
  - "This document does not introduce or modify any security mechanisms." -
while this is true, the reader expects to have a brief overview of the
security considerations / challenges related to multicast in 802.11
  - "As noted in [group_key]..." - please add some brief background about
how group keys are used in 802.11.
- "Since typically there are no ACKs for multicast" - please clarify what
you mean by 'typically'.

- The [group_key] reference includes an extra "".
- Section 7: "will provide" ==> "provides"
- "mimo" ==> "MIMO"
- "reciever" ==> "receiver"

Tal Mizrahi.