[Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-04

Carlos Bernardos <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Sun, 24 September 2017 07:32 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Carlos Bernardos <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: int-dir@ietf.org
Cc: int-area@ietf.org, draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150623836210.5031.17716199391295946656@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 00:32:42 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/spl946SZX9_PsZZGBDfOa09a_Os>
Subject: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-04

Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos
Review result: Ready with Nits

The document is well written and clear to follow. I have not found any major
issue. I have some recommendations/questions for the authors:

* Page 3: RFC 7919 --> RFC 7819.

* It would be good to have a section (maybe an annex) in which authors describe
the differences (if any) found in the experiments performed with IPv4 vs IPv6.
Since IPv6 does not do broadcast, there may be important differences to
highlight.

* While I understand that the authors do not provide details about the apps
analyzed, it would be good to include more information for example about the
distribution of the frequency of broadcast/multicast messages found in the
experiments. And it would also be nice (though I don't know if this would be
feasible) to provide some recommended values for the frequencies to use (an app
developer could benefit from some additional guidelines).

* Page 5: "In that respect broadcast can be [...]" --> "In that respect,
multicast can be [...]" or "In that respect, broadcast/multicast can be [...]".
Note that the examples used are IPv6, so "broadcast" alone would not apply.

[Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-intar… Carlos Bernardos
Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-i… Rolf Winter