Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc-03.txt

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 07:00:37 +1000

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc-03.txt 
Reviewer: Geoff Huston
Review Date: 2 May 2012 
IETF LC End Date: not known 
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:

   I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments:

   The draft is clear and readily understandably - quality is good and no changes are suggested here.

Major Issues: 
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

1.   Section 2, First paragraph reads:

    "For Any-Source Multicast (ASM), the IPv4 multicast addresses
   allocated for documentation purposes are 233.252.0.0 - 233.252.0.255
   (233.252.0.0/24)."

   But the IANA Multicast registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses/multicast-addresses.xml) says:

     AD-HOC Block III (233.252.0.0-233.255.255.255 (233.252/14))

     233.252.0.0-233.252.0.255	MCAST-TEST-NET	[IANA]	2010-01-20	2010-01-20
  
  i.e. the IANA registry does NOT say that this address block has been allocated for documentation. Indeed, it appears (by virtue of its name MCAST-TEST-NET) to be already assigned for test purposes.

  In IPv4 and IPv6 unicast we have deliberately split documentation and test addresses. It would be useful to either understand why this split is not appropriate here, or why this draft does not request a block for IPv4 ASM in the say way that it is already requesting a block for IPv6. This reviewer is of the personal view that a separate assignment would be appropriate here, in a comparable fashion to that being proposed for IPv6 ASM.

2. IANA Considerations

   Obviously the reviewr is anticipating that the 2 TBD IANA assignments will be nade prior to publication.

Nits:

  none found (but this reviewer is the first to admit that he is not a good proof reader!)

--

Geoff Huston