Subject: [bess] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-19: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 23:33:01 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-19: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As Martin Vigoureux's term is near its end, I took the liberty to re-evaluate
twice the ballot status of this document and with the -19 revision all my
previous blocking DISCUSS points are addressed. Thank you to the authors.

See below this line for updated version
----------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. I have to state that I am
neither a EVPN expert not a multicast one.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (probably easy to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Stéphane Litkowski for his shepherd's write-up about the WG
consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== Archived DISCUSS (addressed/fixed in -19) ==

The text covers in details how to map MLD/IGMP into BGP routes but does not say
a word on how to recreate the MLD/IGMP packets. Should there be any such
specification (e.g., in section 4.1) ?

Are all multicast group address treated as the same ? I would have appreciated
some text about link-local multicast as well as global multicast groups
addresses.

-- Abstract --
While this point is pretty light for a blocking DISCUSS, let's fix it:
- the abstract should also mention MLD and not only IGMP
- what are 'the above services' ?

-- Section 1 --
In the same vein, is it about IGMP only ? Or does it include MLD as well ? It
is really unclear.

== COMMENT ==

A very generic comment (but no need to reply): how can an IETF draft still
prefers to use "IGMP" rather than "MLD" in the text in 2021 ? ...

-- Section 1 --
When reading this section, I really and genuinely wonder what is "distributed
anycast multicast router" ? AFAIK "any cast" and "multicast" addresses are
vastly different.

-- Section 3 --
(Addressed in -18) Is there any reason why the terminology is not
alphabetically sorted ?

(Addressed in -18) Please also add 'BD'.

(Addressed in -18) Usually a terminology section is not only about acronym
expansions but also about definitions.

-- Section 4.1 --
What is the definition of a 'first hop PE'? What is the difference with a EVPN
PE ?

-- Section 4.2 --
May be that I overlooked it, but what is a 'proxy querier' ?

What is the difference between "EVPN core" and "MPLS/IP core" ?

-- Section 5.1 --
(Addressed over email) What is "viz" ? (Sorry not being a native English
speaker)

-- Section 8 --
(Addressed over email) Is there a difference between (*, G) and (x, G) ?

-- Section 9.1 --
(Addressed in -18) Please formally specify "IE" as "include/exclude" (if not
mistaken).

I find the description of the bits for MLD confusing, it really appears as a
last-minute add-on to the text. Why not describing the MLDv1 in the same bullet
as in IGMPv1 for the bit 7 ?

(Addressed in -18) Is "SHOULD" the right word for the sender of the reserved
bits ? Especially as section 9.1.1. specifies a "MUST".

-- Sections 9.1, 9.2 --
The flags description appears to be different in the text while it seems to me
that they have the same semantics.