Brian, thanks for the review!
The objective of the document is a joint deployment prescription of two standard protocols (PMIP + IGMP/MLD Proxy) to enable mobile multicast reception. No new protocol mechanisms are defined.
The section you are citing reports on checking the state of current MLD-Proxy implementations, mainly from the linux public domain. They were indeed incomplete, but people from the WG reported on more mature implementations by Juniper (which we didn't have access to).
Best, Thomas On 15.01.2011 05:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Please see attached review. draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-07-carpenter.txt I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-07.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2011-01-15 IETF LC End Date: ?? (no Gen-ART LC review) IESG Telechat date: 2011-01-20 Summary: Ready, but is it ready for BCP? -------- I have very little time for a full review this week, but the document seems technically competent and complete. However, I don't find enough information in the tracker writeup to know whether it is really ready for BCP rather than (say) Experimental status. It's complicated and operational in nature - is there really enough operational experience for a BCP? For example in an Appendix we find A brief experimental trial undertaken in February 2010 revealed the following divergent status of selected IGMP/MLD proxy implementations... That isn't reassuring.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
