Re: [MBONED] WGLC: draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-06

Hi

This looks good to me,

Stig

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:25 PM, TARAPORE, PERCY S <pt5947@att.com> wrote:
> Thanks Jake,
>
>
>
> Stig do you have any further comments? Is the proposed revision good for
> you? I would like to request the Last Call process by the end of this week.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Percy
>
>
>
> From: Holland, Jake [mailto:jholland@akamai.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 6:42 PM
> To: TARAPORE, PERCY S <pt5947@att.com>; Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>; Greg
> Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
> Cc: mboned@ietf.org; SAYKO, ROBERT J <rs1983@att.com>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] WGLC: draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-06
>
>
>
> This one looks fine to me. Thanks for all your work on this, Percy.
>
>
>
> On 1/30/17, 1:00 PM, "TARAPORE, PERCY S" <pt5947@att.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Jake & Stig,
>
>
>
> Attached please find a revised marked up Draft BCP that addresses all your
> comments as follows:
>
>
>
> Jake we accepted all your suggested revisions and have incorporated them
> into the text.
>
>
>
> Stig, we attempted to address all your comments. Please review the changes
> associated with the revision proposed on page 18 (bottom of the page). These
> changes allow us to keep the text for the bullet on page 19 which was the
> motivation for Stig’s Comment 2. Please let us know if this is acceptable.
>
>
>
> Please respond back to me by mid-week so I can formally upload the revised
> Draft and request start of the next – and hopefully last – Last Call.
>
>
>
> Thank you for all your help.
>
>
>
> Percy & Bob
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MBONED [mailto:mboned-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Holland, Jake
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 9:39 PM
> To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>; Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
> Cc: mboned@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] WGLC: draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-06
>
>
>
> On 1/5/17, 11:40 AM, "Stig Venaas" <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
>
>     I see in 4.2.3 it says:
>
>       o Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information
>
>          provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in
>
>          order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT Relay.
>
>
>
>     Do we already have a solution that allows for choosing a different
>
>     relay for different sources? I would be interested in more details. I
>
>     guess it may be out of scope here. But is there already a way of
>
>     describing this with metadata for any applications or EU clients? As a
>
>     BCP it should ideally refer to things that already are in use.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Octoshape media client does something that fits this description. The
> (S,G) and the relay address can be provisioned in the client based on
> metadata it receives at runtime. The DNS is optional, but in this context
> it’s an example, and I think this describes a real-life scenario that’s
> deployed today.
>
>
>
>
>
> To be on the safe side, having mentioned the Octoshape client, I should
> probably make an IPR disclosure:
>
> There are some patents related to the Octoshape technology that I believe
> are now owned by Akamai and/or its subsidiaries. Though I do not believe
> this nuance of configurable AMT relay discovery is covered in any of the
> claims, the Octoshape system itself does use some patent-encumbered
> technology, and if you are inspired to examine its behavior in light of this
> discussion or for some other reason, please be aware that you should
> consider the patents appropriately.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jake
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> MBONED mailing list
>
> MBONED@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned