Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 10:47:53 +0100

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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:

5.1.1.1.  Version (V)

    [And in several other similar sections]

    The protocol version number for this message is 0.

5.2.3.2.  Handling AMT Messages

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

5.3.3.1.  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 
yet".

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

5.3.3.4.  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?