Last Call Review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22
review-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22-tsvart-lc-touch-2018-09-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2018-09-06
Requested 2018-08-23
Draft last updated 2018-09-04
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -22 by Nicolai Leymann (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -22 by Joseph Touch (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -22 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -23 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joseph Touch
State Completed
Review review-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22-tsvart-lc-touch-2018-09-04
Reviewed rev. 22 (document currently at 25)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2018-09-04

Review
review-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22-tsvart-lc-touch-2018-09-04

Hi, all,

I’ve prepared this review the request of Magnus Westerlund, who is preparing a TSVART review. My comments focus on the issue of fragmentation and tunneling.

These are relatively minor issues that are simple to address, but not quite what I would consider nits.

Joe

------

-- Regarding fragmentation:

The doc does the right thing by not trying to describe a solution
itself. However, it cites RFC 5565, which cites RFC4459. That's where
the only trouble lies - 4459 is incorrect, as noted in
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels. I might suggest they continue to cite RFC
5565 but indicate that the requirements for tunneling are under current
revision and cite draft-ietf-intarea-tunnel (at least informationally) too.

It might also be important to discuss the challenge of tunnel
configuration in a multicast environment, which is addressed as well in
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels.

- other issues:

7.2 correctly notes that the TTL should be set per tunneling policy, but
gives no advice as to how that is done (again, a pointer to
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels would be useful)

------