[pim] Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-zeroc onf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-11: (with COMMENT)

Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you Joe Touch for his TSV-ART review, I'd like to pick-up on the issues
discussed there, so include them here:

(i) It also appears that the limited number of (host) hardware address filters
has been overlooked; i.e., if a device is capable of filtering only 4 multicast
addresses in hardware, the device would more efficiently support 7 addresses if
at least 3 DID collide, rather than ensuring that none collide.  When no
addresses collide and the number of filters is exceeded, the network interface
is driven into promiscuous mode that requires software filtering – i.e., it
completely undermines the goal of this doc.

(ii) The protocol requirements need some refinement. Resistance to failure is
NOT the same as robustness to a single point of failure; the tag phrase and the
definition need to be adjusted to align. Item 3 is “multicast self-assignment
protocol coexistence”, i.e., this isn’t about interoperation with other
protocols in general. Item 7 (collision detection and resolution) is not a
requirement; it is an approach to satisfying other requirements, such as 1, 2,
and 5. It would help if the tag phrases were similar (they seem to be phrases
defining properties, except for #6, which should be “supports host-level
multiplexing” – check this throughout for all lists).

(iii) The Note needs revision; the collisions arise after *rejoining
disconnected networks caused by* a temporary network partition. I.e., it is the
rejoining that causes the problem, not the partitioning. The second list should
describe goals of a design; it seems odd to include “cross-platform
availability”, as this seems to conflate deployment with OS capabilities; it is
difficult to appreciate what OS properties could ever interfere with these
mechanisms. An example would help as would rephrasing this as “OS independence”.

... Please see additional comments in the review that may also be helpful.

I see new text, and new RFC-2119 usage, based on these I have cleared my
DISCUSS position.



_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]