Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt> (IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format) to Proposed Standard

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 15:33 18-04-2012, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the MBONE Deployment WG (mboned) to
>consider the following document:
>- 'IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format'
>   <draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt> as a Proposed
>Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[e-mail] mailing lists by 2012-05-02. Exceptionally, comments may be

Is there a write-up for this proposal?

In Section 2:

   "The format to build such addresses is defined in Section 3 for
    ASM mode and Section 4 for SSM mode."

I suggest expanding ASM and SSM on first use.

In Section 3:

   "To meet the requirements listed in Appendix A.2"

Wouldn't it be better to reference RFC 4291?

   "This field must follow the recommendations specified in [RFC3306]
    if unicast-based prefix is used or the recommendations specified
    in [RFC3956] if embedded-RP is used."

Shouldn't that be a MUST?

In Section 4:

   "Flags must be set to 0011."

Is that a requirement?

   "The embedded IPv4 address SHOULD be in the 232/8 range [RFC4607].
    232.0.0.1-232.0.0.255 range is being reserved to IANA."

Why is this a SHOULD?  What does being reserved to IANA mean?

Although the proposal appears simple, I would suggest further review 
as it updates RFC 4291.

Regards,
-sm