Routing Directorate Last Call Review Template To: rtg-ads@… Cc: rtg-dir@…; draft-name.all@…; wg-mailing-list; Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review Date: date IETF LC End Date: date-if-known Intended Status: BCP Summary: This document recommends deprecation of the use of Any-Source Multicast (ASM) for interdomain multicast. It recommends the use of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) for interdomain multicast applications and that hosts and routers in these deployments fully support SSM. Major Issues: No major issues found. On the contrary I think that the document is well wriiten and comprehensive. My point below are at best minor issues, but mostly nits. Actually from a pure technical content point of view everything that needs to be there is there and the recommendations is as far as I understand correct. Minor Issues: There is a document from the RFC Editor, RFC 7322 "RFC Style guide". These guidelines should be followed, e.g. the "Requirement Language should be moved into the body of the document, normally section 1.1. Someone (AD) should think about if the requirement language is needed in this Informational document. A "MUST" is used when outlining what draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis does. but it is not really a requirement from this document. I'm split about this and could go either way. Also the new template should be used for 2119 language. MLDv2 (or MLD) is not a well-know abbreviation and needs to be expanded. IGMPv3 is well-known, but IGMPv3 is not. Beats me what is required, but in such cases I always recommend expanding. " Nits: I wonder about this in section 3.1" "... has become widespread in common OSes for several years (Windows, MacOS, Linux/Android)..." Should we say: "... has become widespread in common Operating Systems for several years (Windows, MacOS, Linux/Android)..." Other style issue: Sometimes IGMPv3 / MLDv2 is used At other places IGMP/MLD or IGMPv3/MLDv2, I think we should use one or the other. Nits tool has two issues, these are addressed in the Shepherd Write-up, poimting out that updates /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64