[MBONED] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-10: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-10: 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-driad-amt-discovery/



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

Thanks for the work that went into creating this document! This approach to
multicast tunnel establishment sounds quite useful, and I hope it sees broad
adoption.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please expand "AMT" in the title.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.2:

>                        Figure 2: DRIAD Messaging

This example uses IPv4 rather than IPv6. Please either add a similar diagram
showing IPv6 usage, or change this diagram to use IPv6. See
https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ for further information.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.6:

>  AMTRELAY records MAY also appear in other
>  zones...

What would this mean? Is this intended for future specifications to
take advantage, or is the document assuming that the reader is able
to figure out the semantics of AMTRELAY RRs elsewhere in the DNS tree?
If the latter, please spell it out explicitly. If the former, please
indicate that using records in this way may be specified in future
documents.