[MBONED] Questions re: draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Tue, 15 October 2019 06:37 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEEDB12006D for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bvYX1gtkF_l5 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82b.google.com (mail-qt1-x82b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEF4212004E for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82b.google.com with SMTP id c21so28975155qtj.12 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Z5hyNyxxVe5xZZg13PRMO7cBATCgevsFLup7n1pFBTk=; b=sZKHR6eeEenRiqcWNmqIyl1Rh3ogiDPh+a44O5r6cE4/8ezs5VCuvNuQLaeN2xrZsR RNieet73RMYDCSfP0jGoH0bO9SPmE4J4RPbt9d7zdbGGASYmFasZY8TdNUOVd5RoUwaC z5TIYIDE6Dla3O0wqMHRnmkX2vyQDm3MDjDEFlH5YJGZ/GSnQQjSr6GFl3thamkrOCyR 36jpvyk8V2nSW1Hv5liFWPyMqGV3zXiUdgp85fsvSSaV76BI+/fSrmuOLGfT9D/xi4xs /USGUzAKfjDYJZuymrS+sSHA3UMekeOmdcPnyE+o1rhg0bqLSIaQVBoUYq9SZi5gMLz/ +FeQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Z5hyNyxxVe5xZZg13PRMO7cBATCgevsFLup7n1pFBTk=; b=Yz8jO6ERaDfxvWWuh/KjdSRk1Mh6h2loTbuUYohNNAcNFfXyWWni+yMdwy3QL6pPBQ +EtLIbNKCis3me2xxDJmAryjwuWNfBa6Z382P3TK0/PLo8EVsQfegX5MfUge0eFg0/3w n8xLGtWL8d1WIa417ltUzhLrrgYoVjpYqWFd1EiitZ28ecUny+gUEL9Jry6RAZlQXYX1 pxMKZy22eWKtd3IPRkrtSXlKttf4zzwnxkuaIsC8ywMoWOs37nlcLYqcWRWAasml0SFO JISGyapE1YevknHtJ82biHzk8JFcV9iVAxRAggth0HQ6G+HCCFo2WncTKcvqf3EoIPeE CZIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV5BVBmhjeV9kxUgtL/vY8nDDVUuJSrdNt2iLDdApbWG9faKQxt VM3tvtDu2iZcOjVMllfTr3p4QzpI4hDzH+PEMS8ceU08RdnFhA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxsDNJ5BEvWQvU/xX+2FAJmj2W9SfPY7fBqMkP+Nh6YgTYZTDuueqeVCYUC8MwmUgnItg1pZtecdu+ztKuYukU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:10e4:: with SMTP id q4mr2095683qvt.59.1571121458779; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 08:37:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iJ5MYoCUY-hRysEfpnYfkmogbfAfhGaqvEDpCn4h9f=OQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: MBONED WG <mboned@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/gZYf_SRq_5f_ZwZkLM9SwDbaxuk>
Subject: [MBONED] Questions re: draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 06:37:43 -0000

Hi there,

Apologies, I just realized that I'd never actually sent this mail
(which explains why I hadn't gotten a reply!) - sorry.

Thank for writing this - I found it to be very well written, clear and
understandable, however there is one (small) issue which I think needs
addressing before I kick off IETF LC.

While doing my AD review of draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery I
looked at the Shepherds Writeup (thanks Tim) and saw:
"I would suggest that the text in 2.3.1 on applying a Happy Eyeballs
algorithm where there are multiple choices for the relay be expanded;
it is very vague at present.  I presume that this may result in
multiple unicast AMT streams coming in to a given gateway, and all but
one of these would be pruned back, but some specifics on that, and how
the preferred stream is retained, would be useful. This also needs to
be set against the proposed active/active failover mode described in
2.4.3."

I think it would be really useful if this could be done before I start
IETF LC; I also found this vague, and think that it will get lots of
comments / questions querying LC.


I also have a minor nit:
Section 2.2.  Signaling and Discovery:

   2.  The join propagates with RPF through the multicast-enabled
       network with PIM [RFC7761] or another multicast routing
       mechanism, until the AMT gateway receives a signal to join the
       (S,G).

There are multiple multicast-enabled networks being discussed here,
and "the multicast-enabled network" is vague as to which one is being
discussed -- I'm not quite sure how to fix it though -- I tried "the
local multicast-enabled", this seems better, but still not great.

W



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf