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

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<mailto: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<mailto:stig@venaas.com>>; Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>
Cc: mboned@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:MBONED@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mboned&d=DwMGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bqnFROivDo_4iF8Z3R4DyNWKbbMeXr0LOgLnElT1Ook&m=bLqYFqDPyoUwkn0mhDUH_igeg-XnrQZJkWvGV_GPlGI&s=mjo85frCoyYa2M8cq3PiyBQFpUY8DMbTXI3ZAcPeNVA&e=>