I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mboned-lightweight-igmpv3-mldv2-05.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2008-09-01 IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-04 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Almost ready -------- Major issues: ------------- There's no writeup in the tracker, so I can't determine why this draft, which appears to be a protocol spec, is being processed as a BCP. To me, it looks more like a Proposed Standard (of the class called Applicability Statement in RFC2026). Minor issues: ------------- > 1. Introduction ... > Since LW-IGMPv3 and LW-MLDv2 are fully compatible with the full > version of these protocols (i.e., the standard IGMPv3 and MLDv2), > hosts or routers that have implemented the full version do not need > to implement or modify anything to cooperate with LW-IGMPv3/LW-MLDv2 > hosts or routers. I assume this also means that LW-IGMPv3 and LW-MLDv2 are strict subsets of IGMPv3 and MLDv2. If so, it would be useful to say so explicitly. Editorial issues: ----------------- No IANA Considerations section. IDnits says: == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? There is a trivial cut-and-paste error, I think. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2236 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 3376) Intentional?
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
