[MBONED] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As TSV-ART reviewer, Gorry Fairhurst provided an extensive review of this doc
in Last Call and a re-review of the current version just recently (Thanks!).
There are still a large number of comments that have not been addressed and no
response was provided from the authors so far. While many of his comments are
mostly editorial, I believe that this doc could really benefit from addressing
them. There are a couple of relevant references that Gorry provides in his
review which I think should be cited by this document. Further as Gorry
mentioned, there are congestion control schemes for multicast and also
high-layer mechanism to make use of multicast support more reliable. This is
not discussed at all. So I'm not even sure if the conclusion in section 8 is
correct that multicast on 2-layer must be reliable. Given the number and
details of problems listed, I find the discussion in section 8 way to high
level anyway.

Also probably editorial: I find it a bit confusion that section 5.1. suddenly
speak all about the IETF network while the rest of the doc seems more general.
Is that on purpose or is that a left over from merging two docs?

I'm not raising any points on the Discuss-level as I believe most (TSV-ART)
points are rather editorial (also some may touch technical points well),
however, I also support the points raised by Alissa and the GEN-ART review and
would really like to see them addressed before publication (ideally they would
have been addressed before IESG evaluation...).