Document: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2010-02-23
IETF LC End Date: 2010-03-04
IESG Telechat date: 

Summary: Technically OK, but shouldn't it be standards track?
--------

Major issues:
-------------

As far as I can tell this draft is technically thorough and authoritative.
But there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the situation that
the draft is trying to resolve:
   "Specifications for multicast in BGP/MPLS... include multiple alternative
   mechanisms [but] do not identify which of these mechanisms are mandatory
   to implement in order to ensure interoperability... which is a problem for
   the numerous operators having multi-vendor backbones."
That seems like an understatement. And then:
   "This document goes through the different building blocks of the
   solution and concludes on which mechanisms an implementation is
   required to implement."
I have to question, therefore, why it is Informational, rather than being
standards track. It seems to be doing exactly what RFC 2026 section 3.2
says a standards track applicability statement should do.

If that path is chosen, the language in section 7 would have to be tightened
up (consistent use of normative keywords) and there would need to be a careful
check that all the normative references have been identified.

If that path is not chosen, i.e. this remains as Informational, there seems
to be a risk of chaos.