Subject: Re: mboned: WG Last Call for draft-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-01.txt

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:14:39 -0800

A few immediate comments:

	Editorial comments:

	(i).	What category (not specified). 

	(ii).	RFC 2770 is obsoleted by 3180 (which is BCP)

	(iii).	draft names itself
		draft-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-01.txt (should
		be draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-01.txt)

	(iv).	While not required, no TOC

	(v).	Section 3: IANA Considerations:
		The /8 should be timed out in a year or so,
		depending on the category we want.

	(vi).	No IPR statement.

	Non-editorial comments:

	(i).	What problems does this solve? In general, the
		256 address limitation imposed by GLOP doesn't
		seem to be much of a problem (rather, it is those
		who need globally unique addresses that may or
		may not be connected to the public Internet,
		etc), i.e., an administrative entity running out
		of GLOP addressing isn't the issue we're facing.

	(ii).	Section 4 Security Considerations

		Why is GLOP dynamic addressing? I would imagine
		that what most folks mean by dynamic addressing
		would fall more commonly along the lines of
		MADCAP, etc.

	Dave

			
_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/