Is there a response to Alexey’s questions? That being said, ALexey, can you point to what specifically you are worried with in the below arrangement on version numbers? A number version comes along, and those implementations handle other version numbers, while being able to downgrade to 0...
Jari On 26 May 2014, at 10:47, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17 > Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov > Review Date: May 26, 2014 > IETF LC End Date: May 26, 2014 > > Summary: Nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. > > Major issues: > > > In the document, I am seeing: > > 5.1.1.1. Version (V) > > [And in several other similar sections] > > The protocol version number for this message is 0. > > 5.2.3.2. Handling AMT Messages > > A gateway that conforms to this specification MUST ignore any message > with a Version field value other than zero. > > 5.3.3.1. Handling AMT Messages > > A relay that conforms to this specification MUST ignore any message > with a Version field value other than zero. > > > > This might not actually be an issue, if it was discussed in the WG. But I am > wondering if the WG thought about versioning, backward compatibility and > other related issues. > How likely is it that a new version of AMT is going to be designed? At the > moment the document reads like "we have a stub field for future versions, but > we haven't thought about how they are going to be handled yet". > > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 5.3.3.4. Handling a Membership Update Message > > o The computed checksums for the encapsulated IP datagram and its > payload MUST match the values contained therein. Checksum > computation and verification varies by protocol; See [RFC0791] for > IPv4, [RFC3376] for IGMPv3, and [RFC4443] for MLD (ICMPv6). > > Any recommendation for IPv6 or is it covered by one of the other choices? > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
