Re: [MBONED] Mirja K?hlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: (with COMMENT)
Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de> Sat, 28 October 2017 00:05 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 52F2C13A296; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.712
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.712 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RLcxPgiWClmx; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB44313F487; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.77]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEEE58C4AE; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:05:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id D95BFB0CFDD; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:05:07 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:05:07 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>
To: Mirja K?hlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp@ietf.org, mboned-chairs@ietf.org, tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk, mboned@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171028000507.GA22613@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <150755404728.18412.14285421235071964427.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/vs_S_XHkaLgJdqZnOAwS4U5kdRY>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Mirja K?hlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 00:05:16 -0000
[The following text up to the individual reply comments is identical for the replies to all ballot comments. I originally wanted to coalesce the reply to all positions into one email but the auto-generated header from datatracker makes it sound as if per-submitter replied are required. So, here we go with some repeated text followed by more individualized text:] Dear Reviewer, This is in response of your reviews of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11.txt as entered in the ballot: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp/ballot/ A version of this email containing replies to all IESG feedback for -11 is also in: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/toerless/peering-bcp/master/11-iesg-review-reply.txt Thank you so much for your thorough review. In response to the IESG feedback, version -12 and -13 of the draft where posted which we hope will resolve the open issues. make 2 Version -12 of the draft was just a conversion from docx generated txt to XML (previous generations where not built from XML), this introduced formatting changes (line wraps etc.) that rfcdiff can not ignore and that would have obfuscated actual content changes. Version -13 of the draft contains the text changes done in response to your comments and discusses. The following RFC diff shows the content diffs vs. -11 without any formatting introduced changes: http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-12.txt&url2=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-13.txt In summary: Beside the various smaller fixups from comments, the mayor rewritten/new blocks are: 4.1.1 - bandwidth management (aka: congestion control section). I didn't just want to put the magic CC sentence in but wanted to let readers understand what it means in the context of specifically 6. Security considerations 6.1. DoS attacks (against state and bandwidth) 6.2. Content security 6.3. Peering encryption 6.4. Operational Aspects This is where the securing of log exchange is discussed. 7. Privacy Considerations Got somewhat longer to explain because the specifics of multicast content and privacy are likely not that obious to non-multicast experienced readers, and given how this is a BCP and i don't even think we did describe this anywhere else, it had to be explanatory. 4.2.4. Public Peering Routing Aspects text did mention non-private peerings, but i was afraid that readers would not understand the problematic implications, so i detailled them given how those peering L2 domains are still common for unicast. Cheers Toerless for the Authors ===================================================================================== Mirja Kuehlewind: > 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]." I tried to fix this text a bit more comprehensively: - removed text from 3.1. The CC requirements apply to every subsection of 3 (3.x) and it duplicates partial text in 4.1, so a random mentioning in 3.1 was not helpfull. - Moved CC text from 4.1 to dedicated section 4.1.1 and made it a lot more explanatory because in my past experience most readers do not really understand our cryptic rules alone ("CC principles across non-controlled network paths"). Also added reference to the fresh BCP145. Please re-read new section and let me know what you think. > 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? Changed to: <t>Efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1 (The closer AR is to uBR, the more efficient).</t> > 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. Yes, i thought about this and came up with the following explanation: <t>Note that except for implied multicast specific elements, the options listed here are not unique or novel for IP multicast, but they are more important for services novel to the operators than for operationally well established services (such as unicast). Therefore we detail them as follows:</t> > 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. Removed - for the time being. I was told that having a wrap up in documents is always a good way to reflect on the document, but i agree the existing text is more distracting than helpful.
- [MBONED] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [MBONED] Mirja K?hlewind's No Objection on dr… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [MBONED] Mirja K?hlewind's No Objection on dr… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [MBONED] Mirja K?hlewind's No Objection on dr… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [MBONED] Mirja K?hlewind's No Objection on dr… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [MBONED] Mirja K?hlewind's No Objection on dr… Toerless Eckert