Hi Jeffery, Thanks for comment. Please find some comment / Question inline to understand your comments better.
On May 9, 2019, at 11:42 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a few comments on this draft, in particular on the BGP PDU encoding procedures: Section 7.1: The lengths of the various fields and their consistency should be spelled out in more detail. For example, a source could be 0 for (*,G), or should be the length of an IPv4 or IPv6 host address (32/128). Other lengths likely do not make sense.. >From >7.1.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02#section-7.1.1> > Constructing the Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag route The Multicast Source length MUST be set to length of multicast source address in bits. In case of a (*, G) Join, the Multicast Source Length is set to 0. in case of (*,G) join , source length would be 0. and it does say in this section. The length of a multicast group also likely should be a "host" length - 32/128. For the source and the group, it is likely an error if the lengths do not agree. E.g. S may be 0, but when 32 or 128 the group must be 32 or 128 respectively. Do you mean, draft should spell out different possible errored length ? or may be statement similar to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514 would be good enough ? The originator router also should likely be a host length, although I'm a bit unclear what the intent of the contents of this field should be. Is this intended to be a loopback? If so, how does one choose it among several, if more than one is available? Should the length of the originator also agree with the S,G fields? Do you mean (S,G) len should be driving factor Originator len / IP ? Some discussion about what to do when the fields are syntactially valid but semantically invalid (e.g. mis-matched lengths) is needed. See RFC 7606 about what to discuss. Likely "treat as withdraw" semantics are desired. The flags field is somewhat confusing when the addresses are IPv6 and thus the procedures are expected to be for MLD rather than IGMP. The draft as a whole, in spite of its title, is worded heavily toward IGMP. I would suggest requesting some appropriate review to help normalize the terminology here. However, the flags field should be clarified for MLD cases. This is being already addressed in next version. Similar comments apply to section 7.2 and 7.3. Section 7.3 does not discuss the two new fields Leave Group Synchornization and Maximum Response Time or the procedures for these fields. It should refer back to section 4.2. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
