Subject: Re: [MBONED] WGLC draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-13

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 23:15:33 -0400

I have reviewed the document and found it good to go. One substantive 
query: the last paragraph of section 5.3.3.2 says:

   "If the Relay Discovery message was
    received as an IPv6 datagram, the relay may return an IPv4 or IPv6
    address in the Relay Address field."

This seems to impose a requirement that any Gateway supporting IPv6 
transport MUST also support IPv4. Is that the intention?

Nits:

4.2.2.1 second para, first sentence: s/change/changes/ to agree with 
"address".

5.1.5 typos:

- second para, first line: s/a receives/it receives/

- third para end of third line: s/Message/Membership/ (Update message)

5.2.1 third para, third-last line: s/primary/primarily/

5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2: Don't these appear in reverse order of usage? I'd 
suggest taking the word "Static" out of the sub-section titles and 
reversing their order.

5.2.3.6.1 final paragraph seems out of place -- it refers to "the 
datagram", where that is not present in the immediately preceding text. 
I suggest moving the final paragraph up to precede the paragraph 
beginning: "A gateway that waits to start ...".

5.3.1 fourth para, first line: s/,Section/in Section/

5.3.2: Should the second paragraph specify that the assigned addresses 
are globally reachable?

5.3.3.3:
- eighth para (third down on p. 64), tenth line: missing text. That line 
and the one following currently read:

"This exception is made because any address that a relay might may not
                                                             ^^^^^
  be a valid source address on any gateway interface.  The rationale ..."

- second-last para, last sentence (top of p. 65):
         s/a membership/membership/

5.3.3.4, third-last para: missing "of" between "form" and "group".

5.3.3.6 first para, last line: s/follow/following/

5.3.3.8 last para, second line: s/reach/reached/

7.1.1 second para: missing space

I didn't check the Appendix.

Tom Taylor

---

From: Greg Bumgardner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 22:34:22 -0700

Thanks Tom,

One comment below...

-g.b.

> transport MUST also support IPv4. Is that the intention?
I had intended to remove that statement but must have missed it. I 
believe we cannot impose that requirement.
> datagram", where that is not present in the immediately preceding 
> text. I suggest moving the final paragraph up to precede the paragraph 
> - eighth para (third down on p. 64), tenth line: missing text. That 
> line and the one following currently read:
>
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>