|
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:tena@xxxxxxxxxx] 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 (ops-dir@xxxxxxxx) 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 |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf