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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2010-03-06 IESG Telechat date: 2010-03-11 Summary: Technically OK, but shouldn't it be standards track? -------- Major issues: ------------- As far as I can tell this draft is technically thorough and authoritative. But there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the situation that the draft is trying to resolve: "Specifications for multicast in BGP/MPLS... include multiple alternative mechanisms [but] do not identify which of these mechanisms are mandatory to implement in order to ensure interoperability... which is a problem for the numerous operators having multi-vendor backbones." That seems like an understatement. And then: "This document goes through the different building blocks of the solution and concludes on which mechanisms an implementation is required to implement." I have to question, therefore, why it is Informational, rather than being standards track. It seems to be doing exactly what RFC 2026 section 3.2 says a standards track applicability statement should do. If that path is chosen, the language in section 7 would have to be tightened up (consistent use of normative keywords) and there would need to be a careful check that all the normative references have been identified. If that path is not chosen, i.e. this remains as Informational, there seems to be a risk of chaos.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
