Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast-15
review-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast-15-rtgdir-early-venaas-2015-02-03-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 17) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2015-02-03 | |
Requested | 2015-01-26 | |
Authors | Yakov Rekhter , Eric C. Rosen , Rahul Aggarwal , Thomas Morin , Irene Grosclaude , Nicolai Leymann , Samir Saad | |
I-D last updated | 2015-02-03 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Vijay K. Gurbani
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -15 by Stig Venaas (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Stig Venaas |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 15 (document currently at 17) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2015-02-03 |
review-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast-15-rtgdir-early-venaas-2015-02-03-00
Hi 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 see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 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-mpls-seamless-mcast-15 Reviewer: Stig Venaas Review Date: 2 February 2015 IETF LC End Date: 2 February 2015 Intended Status: Proposed Standard Summary: The document is fairly well written. I only found minor editorial issues, plus potentially a missing IANA action. The document states in e.g. 6.2.2. Leaf A-D Route for Global Table Multicast that the RD in the MCAST-VPN NLRI is set to all 1s for (*,G)-state. Is this use of RD defined in another document? Shouldn't RD type 65535 then be assigned for this purpose in http://www.iana.org/assignments/route-distinguisher-types/route-distinguisher-types.xhtml Minor issues: Section 3: The reader is suppose to be familiar with MVPN procedures and ^^^^^^^^ although this by no means imply that this alternative ^^^^^^ 5.1.2. Routes re-avertise by PE or ASBR ^^^^^^^^^^^ 5.2.2. Routes re-avertise by PE or ASBR ^^^^^^^^^^^ Stig