[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 05 September 2018 04:37 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E60127333; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 21:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Cc: softwires@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153612222105.14129.11979247184090243326@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 21:37:01 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/CEm7CTxVp3qHJvbcdnDfFG--sGw>
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2018 04:37:01 -0000

Reviewer: Joseph Touch
Review result: Ready with Issues

Hi, all,

I’ve prepared this review the request of Magnus Westerlund, who is preparing a
TSVART review. My comments focus on the issue of fragmentation and tunneling.

These are relatively minor issues that are simple to address, but not quite
what I would consider nits.

Joe

------

-- Regarding fragmentation:

The doc does the right thing by not trying to describe a solution
itself. However, it cites RFC 5565, which cites RFC4459. That's where
the only trouble lies - 4459 is incorrect, as noted in
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels. I might suggest they continue to cite RFC
5565 but indicate that the requirements for tunneling are under current
revision and cite draft-ietf-intarea-tunnel (at least informationally) too.

It might also be important to discuss the challenge of tunnel
configuration in a multicast environment, which is addressed as well in
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels.

- other issues:

7.2 correctly notes that the TTL should be set per tunneling policy, but
gives no advice as to how that is done (again, a pointer to
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels would be useful)

------