[MBONED] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 12 October 2017 02:13 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 9FA70133083; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
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: <150777442861.16836.8073838629509620225.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:13:48 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/r3gHeNC469B2wHECWXvES79U8Vc>
Subject: [MBONED] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: (with 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 02:13:49 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: No Objection

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Alissa's and Kathleen's DISCUSSes; and (as a separate concern), I
support Ben's DISCUSS.

Most of the comments I noted in my review of this document have been made by
other reviewers, and I will not reiterate most of them. I would, however, like
to draw particular attention to Ben's comments regarding charging, billing, and
settlement -- I believe these issues should either be fleshed out in
significantly more detail, or removed (with a simple statement in the
introduction that such issues are generally out of scope for the entire
document).

___

Section 4.2.3 contains the following text:

    (Note
     that in IPv6 there is a specific Anycast format and Anycast is
     inherent in IPv6 routing, whereas in IPv4 Anycast is handled via
     provisioning in the network. Details are out of scope for this
     document.)

It would be helpful to the reader if the "out of scope" statement were
accompanied by a pointer to BCP 126/RFC 4786.

___

Section 5 contains the following text:

   It is expected that multicast diagnostics will be collected
   according to currently established practices [MDH-04].

I believe this statement makes [MDH-04] normative, as it is required to
understand its contents to implement the recommendations in this BCP.