Fwd: [OPS-DIR] Review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

For the WG's attention.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Bernard Aboba" <[e-mail]>
> Date: February 28, 2010 2:36:28 PM EST
> To: "'Tina TSOU'" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail] 
> >
> Subject: [OPS-DIR] Review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations
>
> I reviewed the document draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations in  
> general
> and for its operational impact.
>
> Operations directorate reviews are solicited primarily to help the  
> area
> directors improve their efficiency, particularly when preparing for  
> IESG
> telechats, and allowing them to focus on documents requiring their  
> attention
> and spend less time on the trouble-free ones.
>
> Improving the documents is important, but clearly a secondary purpose.
> A third purpose is to broaden the OpsDir reviewers' exposure to work  
> going
> on in other parts of the IETF.
>
> Reviews from OpsDir members do not in and of themselves cause the  
> IESG to
> raise issue with a document. The reviews may, however, convince  
> individual
> IESG members to raise concern over a particular document requiring  
> further
> discussion. The reviews, particularly those conducted in last call and
> earlier, may also help the document editors improve their documents.
>
> --
>
> Review Summary:
> Intended status:  Doesn't say
>
>    More that one set of mechanisms to support multicast in a layer 3
>    BGP/MPLS VPN has been defined.  These are presented in the  
> documents
>    that define them as optional building blocks.
>
>    To enable interoperability between implementations, this document
>    defines a subset of features that is considered mandatory for a
>    multicast BGP/MPLS VPN implementation.  This will help implementers
>    and deployers understand which L3VPN multicast requirements are  
> best
>    satisfied by each option.
>
> Is the document readable?
>
>    Yes.
>
> Does it contain nits?
>
>    While there were no errors, idnits did spit out quite a few  
> warnings:
>
> idnits 2.12.01
>
> tmp/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06.txt:
> tmp/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06.txt(366): Found possible  
> IPv4 address '3.4.1.1' in position 8; this doesn't match the  
> suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 3330 (or  
> successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST- 
> NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the suggested  
> 233.252.0.0/24 example multicast address range.
> tmp/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06.txt(369): Found possible  
> IPv4 address '3.4.1.2' in position 8; this doesn't match the  
> suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 3330 (or  
> successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST- 
> NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the suggested  
> 233.252.0.0/24 example multicast address range.
> tmp/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06.txt(372): Found possible  
> IPv4 address '3.4.1.3' in position 8; this doesn't match the  
> suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 3330 (or  
> successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST- 
> NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the suggested  
> 233.252.0.0/24 example multicast address range.
> tmp/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06.txt(531): Line has weird  
> spacing: '...   or   the us...'
>
>
>   Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
>   http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
>    
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License  
> Notice from
>      12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009.  (See
>      http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)
>
>
>   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt 
> :
>    
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming  
> Proposed
>      Standard
>
>
>   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>    
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   == There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC3330-compliant IPv4  
> addresses
>      in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should  
> be changed.
>
>
>   Miscellaneous warnings:
>    
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      No issues found here.
>
>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>    
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative  
> references
>      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>
>   == Missing Reference: 'RFC4364' is mentioned on line 747, but not
>      defined
>      'Options A, B and C (as described in section 10 of [RFC4364])  
> are...'
>
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
>      draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-09
>
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of
>      draft-rosen-vpn-mcast-12
>
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
>      draft-ietf-pim-sm-linklocal-08
>
>
>      Summary: 0 errors (**), 7 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).
>
>
> Is the document class appropriate?
>
>    No class is stated, so I can't tell.
>
> Is the problem well stated?
>
>    Yes.
>
> Is the problem really a problem?
>
>    Yes.
>
> Does the document consider existing solutions?
>
>    Yes.  The document is devoted to evaluating existing solutions
>    against the requirements.
>
> Does the solution break existing technology?
>
>    No.  The document attempts to make the best choice among
>    competing alternatives for each requirement.
>
> Does the solution preclude future activity?
>
>    No.
>
> Is the solution sufficiently configurable?
>
>    The goal of this document is reduce potential interoperability
>    problems, so that it is necessary to reduce "choice" in the service
>    of that goal.  I don't believe that there has been any meaningful
>    loss in configurability as a result of that.
>
> Can performance be measured? How?
>
>    Mechanisms for measuring multicast routing and forwarding  
> performance
>    should be applicable here.
>
> Does the solution scale well?
>
>    The document does discuss intra as well as inter-AS deployment  
> options,
>    and even gets into discussion of inter-provider multicast VPNs in  
> Section
>    3.5.  So the recommendations span a variety of deployment  
> scenarios and
>    usage scales.
>
> Is Security Management discussed?
>
>    While there is no security considerations section to speak of,
>    Section 3.3.5 does get into discussion of security and robustness
>    issues.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> From: Tina TSOU [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:01 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Ron Bonica; Dan Romascanu
> Subject: Operations Directorate Review
>
> Hello,
> As a member of the Operations Directorate you are being asked to  
> review the
> following IESG work item for it's operational impact.
>
> IETF Last Call:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06.txt
>
>
> Please provide comments and review to the Ops-dir mailing list
> ([e-mail]) before the next IESG telechat, and include the  
> authors of the
> draft as well.
>
> The IESG telechat agenda is below, you could find the exact date,  
> i.e. the expected deadline for the feedback of your review.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/
>
>
> For a list of questions to be answered in an OPS-DIR review see  
> Appendix A in RFC 5706. Note that not all questions may apply to all  
> documents, and some other items may be identified by the OPS-DIR  
> reviews.
>
>
> The status of Operations Directorate Review could be found
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/Directorates
>
> You could wiki it when you finish the review.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
> Tina
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-DIR mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir