Pete, thanks for your review. I merged several of your comments into my DISCUSS ballot along with a couple others.
Alissa > On Oct 14, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review result: On the Right Track > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09 > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review Date: 2019-10-14 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-10-14 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > This document has good information and analysis of multicast problems and is > certainly valuable. However, there are some things in the document which could > use clarification or editing. > > Major issues: > > The first paragraph of section 8 really has too little useful comment. There > is > no reference for 802.1ak, the reference to 802.1Q is inline instead of in the > references section, and the content of neither of these standards is explained > in this document. The paragraph doesn't really lay out what the topic of > discussion is, at least for someone like myself who is not versed in the > topic. > I really think this needs to be addressed. > > Minor issues: > > (Some of these issues are more or less "minor".) > > Section 3.1.4 seems a little thin to this non-expert. It is certainly true > that > "every station has to be configured to wake up to receive the multicast", but > it seems like only a poorly designed protocol would create the situation where > "the received packet may ultimately be discarded" on any kind of regular > basis. > If there are a class of packets that the receiver will ultimately discard, > that > sounds like they should be on a separate multicast address, or the sender > should be determining if the packet will be discarded before sending it. > Perhaps what this section is driving at is that multicast protocols are often > designed without taking power-saving considerations into account, but then > *that's* what this section should probably talk about. As it is, it sounds > like > the old joke about saying to the doctor, "My arm hurts when I do this" and the > doctor replying, "The stop doing that". > > In section 3.2.1, the last paragraph is missing a bunch of information: > "It's often the first service that operators drop": What is "it"? > "Multicast snooping" is not defined. > In what scenario are devices "registering"? > > Section 3.2.2: "This intensifies the impact of multicast messages that are > associated to the mobility of a node." I don't understand why. Are you simply > saying that as the number of addresses goes up, more discovery packets must be > sent? > > Section 3.2.4: This seems like more of general problem than a > multicast-specific one, and as described it sounds like an attack rather than > a > poor outcome of a protocol design decision like the rest of the examples. > Perhaps framing it that way would make the section clearer. > > Section 4.4: Which problem in section 3 is 4.4 supposed to address? > > Section 5.1: "...and sometimes the daemons just seem to stop, requiring a > restart of the daemon and causing disruption." What a strange thing to say. > Does this simply mean "and the current implementations are buggy"? > > Also section 5.1: "The distribution of users on wireless networks / subnets > changes from one IETF meeting to the next". This document doesn't seem to be > about the IETF meeting network. This sentence seems inappropriately specific. > The "NAT" and "Stateful firewalls" sections are also overly specific to the > IETF meeting network. Generalizing would help. > > 7: This section seems quite thin, and perhaps unnecessary. The recommendations > are implicit in the previous sections. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 3.2.4: The mention of the face-to-face (probably better: "plenary") > meeting seems unnecessary. > > Section 5.1: Numbering the subsections would probably be useful. > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
