Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Is there a response to Alexey’s questions?

That being said, ALexey, can you point to what specifically you are worried with in the below arrangement on version numbers? A number version comes along, and those implementations handle other version numbers, while being able to downgrade to 0...

Jari

On 26 May 2014, at 10:47, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17
> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
> Review Date: May 26, 2014
> IETF LC End Date: May 26, 2014
> 
> Summary:  Nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> 
> In the document, I am seeing:
> 
> 5.1.1.1.  Version (V)
> 
>   [And in several other similar sections]
> 
>   The protocol version number for this message is 0.
> 
> 5.2.3.2.  Handling AMT Messages
> 
>   A gateway that conforms to this specification MUST ignore any message
>   with a Version field value other than zero.
> 
> 5.3.3.1.  Handling AMT Messages
> 
>   A relay that conforms to this specification MUST ignore any message
>   with a Version field value other than zero.
> 
> 
> 
> This might not actually be an issue, if it was discussed in the WG. But I am wondering if the WG thought about versioning, backward compatibility and other related issues.
> How likely is it that a new version of AMT is going to be designed? At the moment the document reads like "we have a stub field for future versions, but we haven't thought about how they are going to be handled yet".
> 
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 5.3.3.4.  Handling a Membership Update Message
> 
>  o  The computed checksums for the encapsulated IP datagram and its
>      payload MUST match the values contained therein.  Checksum
>      computation and verification varies by protocol; See [RFC0791] for
>      IPv4, [RFC3376] for IGMPv3, and [RFC4443] for MLD (ICMPv6).
> 
> Any recommendation for IPv6 or is it covered by one of the other choices?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art