[MBONED] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 12 October 2017 13:49 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25211321A4; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp@ietf.org, mboned-chairs@ietf.org, tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk, mboned@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150781617870.16770.11927598062483869535.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:49:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/D0kIOtndtOOemtEZ-bu2CdlX3Vw>
Subject: [MBONED] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mboned/>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:49:38 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: Discuss 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry for this last minute discuss but I would like to emphasize the points made in the tsv-art review on congestion/rate control (Thanks Yoshi!): Please provide stronger guidance (MUST) on the use of rate/congestion control in these two cases: In Section 3.1: " If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated accordingly by the two domains to permit the transit of non- rate adaptive multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then it is recommended that the multicast traffic should support rate-adaption." In Section 4.1, "When determining the appropriate bandwidth allocation, parties should consider use of a multicast protocol suitable for live video streaming that is consistent with Congestion Control Principles [BCP41]." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor questions/comments: 1) Section 3.4 also says: "Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1." But aren't packets eventually duplicated in this case in AD-1? I guess it's more efficient than replicating them at the network border but might be still less efficient than native multicast in the whole network, no? 2) section 4.3.3 says: "The two AD's may supply additional security logs..." This seems to be a general action not specific to multicast or the scenarios described in this doc. 3) I don't think the conclusion section (8) is helpful or needed. If you want to keep it at all, this text could be moved into the introduction.
- [MBONED] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Mirja Kühlewind