Re: [Mcast-wifi] [mboned] working group draft related to the topic of interest for this discussion group
Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> Tue, 06 November 2018 06:45 UTC
Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: mcast-wifi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mcast-wifi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4581128CF2 for <mcast-wifi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:45:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=earthlink.net; domainkeys=pass (2048-bit key) header.from=charles.perkins@earthlink.net header.d=earthlink.net
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 YAOjlo_C9TZf for <mcast-wifi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:45:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A042C128CB7 for <mcast-wifi@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:45:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=earthlink.net; s=dk12062016; t=1541486746; bh=fUdSLgr4pSWvA5dt1/Gko41J3y6ykPn1XqTW ohK77Wo=; h=Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date: User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Language: X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; b=ZrXdQ2ZOS7iMYFX/UfakjcrhYxOElzDfC OpuOfoTL7xiRquG4fMWYTcR4JYTNJtbCl3ArqMJqDhxGLvjsI8zDAIeRECtVLcZWsl2 JSfR4ylUhKB44qtpwRx3ZBqKDCJCF2y4t768kRR6woKq+XCu+UesfxL6GBcmZZsHmCk XcDECkwo/yISiclN76eKN/Dnolojobp3fojshDHh02RRwA+PGxfo/jqVDmfTk/s6HuJ T33ovCN9RJWgbQuyd7Arq8oX5JZ5DbxBr6Z+9WI0Z6FY1T6ekUcHqP0wGSwsaeBTB9r nUFqibvmrSjKATTt2IPgV0SMZ6NoOVOpU7s+y1UfQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk12062016; d=earthlink.net; b=ebrcy0SQGxAaVaUMkjdIg3ylGH2slOHbybCPrLE81v+3vubNFuggQRj+uvduMozAvGK+hb6wtLH8FWnzDKk3EXzuffWaJJ80nSEGVIeNDnAHPv8IgSSUhhgm5onhNz3ZXJS2D4BSi8BcA4vjCcP1uCx1+vBW2gnzVfYKG6krR+QeGIkY8YSptZfup1tOznEHmOaKOUBLJkSdCzNvmWl5UWffQqoatX3N9xN8pQvD+zNgIYmucjWA+UoFc2K/lmwm06bkDRLFG2gxvnianDsxaBCR2WB82MG7F9KkXM5SVQ9g73t/9ZifeIYI+a5yZP6BzDW9BnPudG03ATgDVxX55w==; h=Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Language:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [31.133.189.92] by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1gJv7P-0007Nw-Mm; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 01:45:44 -0500
To: "Holland, Jake" <jholland=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <cbccbbef-c518-7884-13c4-f324e646cd8f@earthlink.net> <09210197-91cc-7b5a-36f0-7318557b225a@earthlink.net> <711DCC66-CB01-479D-A3DF-587BA4A76E27@akamai.com>
Cc: "mcast-wifi@ietf.org" <mcast-wifi@ietf.org>
From: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a6ff06b1-ea2f-8e7b-6f04-542e2cae1f10@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 22:45:40 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <711DCC66-CB01-479D-A3DF-587BA4A76E27@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------16682446913E72B1AEB2714C"
Content-Language: en-US
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956846b590522b13c95978a9f480ea29d995f1d0cb97bb0e7cc350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 31.133.189.92
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mcast-wifi/0CUU2RMMLLNyASxD-9hfLm90DjE>
Subject: Re: [Mcast-wifi] [mboned] working group draft related to the topic of interest for this discussion group
X-BeenThere: mcast-wifi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions related to issues with multicast in 802.11 Wi-Fi networks & solutions/optimizations targeted at resolving these issues." <mcast-wifi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mcast-wifi>, <mailto:mcast-wifi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mcast-wifi/>
List-Post: <mailto:mcast-wifi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mcast-wifi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mcast-wifi>, <mailto:mcast-wifi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 06:45:50 -0000
Hello Jake, I am just now getting to your comments. They are really much appreciated. I hope to be able to discuss them during today's [mboned] session, but it is likely that my effort to include them in today's presentation has come too late. No matter what, I will follow-up on the mailing list within the week. A new revision of the document will follow soon afterward. Regards, Charlie P. On 8/10/2018 6:29 PM, Holland, Jake wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks Charlie and Mike, I think this document is important and > valuable and > > I'm glad to see the progress. > > I've read through the -01 version, and I have a few comments. > > High-level general comments: > > 1. IETF's conference WLANs > > I'll +1 Joel's comment that several places are strangely specific to the > > wifi networks at IETF conferences. > > Although some of the mentions have useful observations, I think it's > > probably at best confusing to readers who haven't attended the conferences > > in person when the context wasn't explained, like in section 5.1 under NAT > > and Stateful firewalls. > > Is there a good way to rephrase the explanations to refer to something > like > > a more generic "WLAN for a conference with ~3k STAs"? > > And if the IETF is unusual in its commitment to the end-to-end > principle in > > practice (as I think is the case), I would say it's useful to talk about > > pros and cons and common practice without apologizing for what IETF > does at > > its conferences, regardless of pitchforks. > > 2. Spelling and definition of "wifi" > > I don't have a strong position here, but will this eventually get kicked > > back to replace uses of "wifi" with "Wi-Fi" or "IEEE 802.11 WLAN" or > > something? If "wifi" is clear and uncontroversial, I have no objection to > > it, I just wanted to call attention to it as a point that might get > > objections at some point, and ask if it'll need changing? > > Regardless, I'll suggest (maybe in the definitions section?) describing or > > providing a reference to the set of specifications this document is > > referencing with the term "wifi" (or "Wi-Fi", if that turns out to be the > > preferred language). > > Editorial: > > 1. (Abstract) > > I think this sentence could be dropped entirely, it's sort of implicit in > > having it eventually turn into an RFC: > > IETF multicast experts have been > > meeting together to discuss these issues and provide IEEE updates. > > The mboned working group is chartered to receive regular reports on > > the current state of the deployment of multicast technology, create > > "practice and experience" documents that capture the experience of > > those who have deployed and are deploying various multicast > > technologies, and provide feedback to other relevant working groups. > > 2. (Abstract, nit) > > chioces -> choices > > 3. (section 1, nit) > > enhamcements -> enhancements > > 4. (section 1, nit) > > "neighborhood discovery" -> "neighbor discovery" (I think?) > > 5. (section 1) > > I think the list of environments with multicast video streaming should > > include homes. This use case is becoming more common, I believe. > > I'll offer some language here, but feel free to wordsmith to your own > taste. I > > Just would like to see home video services included: > > OLD: > > more applications, such as push to talk in hospitals, video in > > enterprises and lectures in Universities, are streaming over wifi. > > Many types of end devices are increasingly using wifi for their > > connectivity. > > NEW: > > more applications, such as push to talk in hospitals, or video in > > enterprises, universities, and homes, are sending multicast IP to end > > user devices, which are increasingly using wifi for their connectivity. > > 5.a. (section 1) > > Is it worth adding here use cases that are considered probably useful, but > > not currently done with multicast over wifi, in part because of these > > concerns? (e.g. apps providing instant replays in a stadium IIUC currently > > use unicast, but could theoretically share a lot of bandwidth) > > 6. (section 1, nit) > > period ends sentence early. > > OLD: > > issues created by multicast traffic. as described in Section 5. > > NEW (suggested): > > issues created by multicast traffic, as described in Section 5. > > 7. (section 1) > > Is the 2nd to last paragraph intended to be part of the final document, or > > as a note to contributors or something? > > 8. (section 2) > > A few other terms might be appropriate here that I noticed later: > > ACK - the 802.11 layer 2 acknowledgement > > PER - packet error rate > > 9. (section 3 title, nit) > > mulitcast -> multicast > > 10. (section 3.1.2) > > I think one of the "wired" in the first sentence should be "wifi" or > "wireless": > > ... multicast over wired versus multicast over > > wired is that... > > 11. (section 3.1.2, paragraph 2 nit) > > "an Access Points" -> "an Access Point" > > 12. (section 3.1.2, paragraph 3) > > I'm slightly confused by "lowest common denominator rate" -- I think > that's > > the slowest rate of all the connected devices, or the minimum configured > > rate in the AP, is that correct? > > Also, the different sentences seem to refer to this value both as the > "basic > > rate" and the "base data rate"; are those interchangeable, and are they > > normative? Sorry, I haven't read all the relevant 802.11 specs, and > I'm not > > sure offhand if those have different meanings or not. (A “as defined in > > section XX of 802.YY” might be useful here, if that exists?) > > 13. (section 3.1.3) > > I think the term "client" was not defined, but it looks like it's used > > interchangeably with "STA", is that correct? Should it be either > defined or > > changed to STA? I'm not completely sure whether any technical distinction > > is intended. > > 14. (section 3.2.1) > > I think ARP is not an IPv4 protocol. Maybe "IPv4 protocols" -> "protocols > > commonly used in IPv4 networks"? (Also, I thought it uses broadcast > but not > > multicast--is there a common multicast case, or should this say "multicast > > or broadcast"?) > > 15. (section 3.2.1) > > I think UPnP might be a good inclusion here. > > 16. (section 3.2.1) > > I think Bonjour is the same as mDNS, right? > > Also: I'm a little uncomfortable with the Apple sentences here, though I > > think the information is valuable. Maybe it could be moved and > restated as a > > mitigation for conference/enterprise networks? Something like removing the > > Bonjour sentences here and adding something like this under section 5 > (though I’m > > not sure it fits with 5.1, maybe as part of a “5.2 Mitigating spurious > discovery > > messages” or something?): > > " > > suppress or block mDNS messages > > In networks that must support hundreds of STAs, operators have > observed > > network degradation due to many devices simultaneously registering > with > > mDNS (for example, with Apple's Bonjour service). In a network > with many > > clients, it is recommended to ensure that mDNS packets designed to > > discover services in smaller home networks be constrained to avoid > > disrupting other traffic. > > " > > (In fact, I suspect this could be generalized further--what happens if a > > UPnP service becomes popular on laptops or phones?) > > 17. (section 4) > > Would it be useful to include a section for AMT? I think I could suggest > > a couple of paragraphs if you think it would be a useful addition. > > I think it's in the same category as DMS and multicast-to-unicast, and > > perhaps the 3 should be grouped into a common section together, since they > > share some characteristics that could share a description (and maybe a > > note about applicability for home networks, and scaling considerations in > > networks with many STAs subscribed to traffic). > > I'm out of time for more detailed comments right now and I wanted to send > > out what I've got, but please do not be surprised if I add some further > > comments at some point unrelated to what I’ve got so far. > > I'm looking forward to the next revision, I think this is a useful > document, > > and I'm glad to see it moving forward. > > Thanks for working on it, and let me know if there's anything you'd > like me > > to clarify. > > Kind regards, > > Jake > > > _______________________________________________ > Mcast-wifi mailing list > Mcast-wifi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mcast-wifi
- [Mcast-wifi] Submission of new draft Charlie Perkins
- [Mcast-wifi] [mboned] working group draft related… Charlie Perkins
- Re: [Mcast-wifi] [mboned] working group draft rel… Holland, Jake
- Re: [Mcast-wifi] [mboned] working group draft rel… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Mcast-wifi] [MBONED] [mboned] working group … Manfredi (US), Albert E
- Re: [Mcast-wifi] [mboned] working group draft rel… Charlie Perkins