[bess] Comments on BGP procedures for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

I have a few comments on this draft, in particular on the BGP PDU encoding
procedures:

Section 7.1:
The lengths of the various fields and their consistency should be spelled
out in more detail.  

For example, a source could be 0 for (*,G), or should be the length of an
IPv4 or IPv6 host address (32/128).  Other lengths likely do not make sense.

The length of a multicast group also likely should be a "host" length -
32/128. 

For the source and the group, it is likely an error if the lengths do not
agree.  E.g. S may be 0, but when 32 or 128 the group must be 32 or 128
respectively.

The originator router also should likely be a host length, although I'm a
bit unclear what the intent of the contents of this field should be.  Is
this intended to be a loopback?  If so, how does one choose it among
several, if more than one is available?  Should the length of the originator
also agree with the S,G fields?

Some discussion about what to do when the fields are syntactially valid but
semantically invalid (e.g. mis-matched lengths) is needed.  See RFC 7606
about what to discuss.  Likely "treat as withdraw" semantics are desired.

The flags field is somewhat confusing when the addresses are IPv6 and thus
the procedures are expected to be for MLD rather than IGMP.  The draft as a
whole, in spite of its title, is worded heavily toward IGMP.  I would
suggest requesting some appropriate review to help normalize the terminology
here.  However, the flags field should be clarified for MLD cases.

Similar comments apply to section 7.2 and 7.3.

Section 7.3 does not discuss the two new fields Leave Group Synchornization
and Maximum Response Time or the procedures for these fields.  It should
refer back to section 4.2.

-- Jeff