At 15:33 18-04-2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the MBONE Deployment WG (mboned) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format'
<draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt> as a Proposed
Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2012-05-02. Exceptionally, comments
may be
Is there a write-up for this proposal?
In Section 2:
"The format to build such addresses is defined in Section 3 for
ASM mode and Section 4 for SSM mode."
I suggest expanding ASM and SSM on first use.
In Section 3:
"To meet the requirements listed in Appendix A.2"
Wouldn't it be better to reference RFC 4291?
"This field must follow the recommendations specified in [RFC3306]
if unicast-based prefix is used or the recommendations specified
in [RFC3956] if embedded-RP is used."
Shouldn't that be a MUST?
In Section 4:
"Flags must be set to 0011."
Is that a requirement?
"The embedded IPv4 address SHOULD be in the 232/8 range [RFC4607].
232.0.0.1-232.0.0.255 range is being reserved to IANA."
Why is this a SHOULD? What does being reserved to IANA mean?
Although the proposal appears simple, I would suggest further review
as it updates RFC 4291.
Regards,
-sm