Subject: mboned: WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-ssm232-08.txt

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 15:59:53 -0700

Folks,

This is a second WG Last Call (WGLC) for draft-ietf-mboned-ssm232-08.txt,
"Source-Specific Protocol Independent Multicast in 232/8".  

See http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-ssm232-08.txt

What has changed is the addition of section 1.1 (BCP,
Experimental Protocols and Normative References) in which we ask
for a variance (for MSDP) to the rule that a BCP can not have a
normative reference to an experimental protocol. 

Please review section 1.1. carefully, and send your feedback to
the list.  Please also indicate whether or not you believe that
this document is ready to go to the IESG.

This WGLC will end on 21 May 2004 at 1500 PDT (GMT/UTC-7).

Thanks,

Dave

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 09:09:46 +0300 (EEST)

> This WGLC will end on 21 May 2004 at 1500 PDT (GMT/UTC-7).

Section 1.1 is good.

Two issues about the draft itself:

1)

There is one thing in the document I'm not 100% confortable with: 
stating operational requirements with SHOULD and MUST keywords.  I'm 
not sure if this makes it sufficiently clear which of these checks 
should be performed by the _implementations_ (then uppercase keywords 
would be fine), or which would have to configured by the operators.

I think the SHOULD (NOT)/MUST (NOT) language should be re-reviewed, 
the operational requirements changed to lowercase (for example).

2)

This document is only concerned about 232/8, but should it also care 
for the IPv6 SSM?  Some checks (relating to MSDP) do not apply there, 
but the rest should.  Including v6 here would seem warranted...

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:10:12 -0700

>> the operational requirements changed to lowercase (for example).

	Ok.

>> but the rest should.  Including v6 here would seem warranted...

	This document is entitled "Source-Specific Protocol
	Independent Multicast in 232/8". Are you suggesting we
	respin it into something more general, or that another
	document is needed for IPv6?

	Dave

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:32:33 +0300 (EEST)

> 	document is needed for IPv6?

I'd expand the scope of this document, as the issues are really 
identical except for the lack of MSDP in v6.