Subject: [apps-review] Review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-01

From: Yves Lafon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:15:28 -0400 (EDT)

I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for 
this draft (for background on apps-review, please see 
http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).

Document: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-01
Reviewer: Yves Lafon
Review Date: 22 September 2010

Review Summary:
This draft seems ready to advance, depending on 
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10

Document Summary:
This document define a new "S-PMSI Join" message and PIM to extends MVPN 
to IPv6 flows.
There are no apps-related issues in this document.
The security section is accuratey referring to 
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10

Major issues:
   none

Minor issues:
In the reference sections, links to drafts should be labelled
'(Work in progress)'

And one question: Is this going to obsolete the Type 1 S-PMSI Join message 
defined in draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10.txt (using IPv4-mapped IPv6 
addresses) ?

Cheers,

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:12:49 -0400

Yves, thanks for your comments.

> Is this going to obsolete the Type 1 S-PMSI Join message defined in
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10.txt (using IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses)?

No, that is not the intention.  If the VPN customer is using IPv4, then the
type 1 S-PMSI Join will still be used.  The type 4 is used only if the VPN
customer is using IPv6.

> In the reference sections, links to drafts should be labelled '(Work in
> progress)'

Well, in this particular case, the referenced draft is already on the RFC
Editor's publication queue; also the reference is normative.  So labeling it
as "work in progress" would not really be appropriate.  The RFC Editor
will bring the reference up to date when the drafts are published.