[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-10.txt
Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Mon, 09 May 2011 06:12 UTC
Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EADE067A for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2011 23:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.716
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HOST_EQ_STATICIP=1.511, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Zj5qEdtgUy4 for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2011 23:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFD5E0656 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 May 2011 23:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.59.1.150] (135.Red-217-126-147.staticIP.rima-tde.net [217.126.147.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7044B68C0; Mon, 9 May 2011 16:11:55 +1000 (EST)
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 16:11:50 +1000
Message-Id: <E7B76631-2AC8-4A62-8D44-4D0F657C3C15@apnic.net>
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-10.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 06:12:04 -0000
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-10.txt Reviewer: Geoff Huston Review Date: 9 May 2011 IETF LC End Date: Intended Status: Informational Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: The document tends to be narrowly focussed and while it considers one particular scenario in depth the reviewer was left wondering about all the other potential business scenarios regarding content delivery and AAA that the document does not note, even if to state that all such scenarios outside of this limited scope are not to be considered here. Major Issues: I suppose the largest unanswered question is: Why is the AAA task for multicast content DIFFERENT than that used to allow the User access to the NSP's network in the first place? The draft appears to assume that there is a seperate multicast AAA enrolment going on here, but there is no motivation for this, and the reviewer is left wondering why there this appears to be distinct from the initial user authentication process for unicast network services. The text could do with some revision to explicitly address this consideration. Minor Issues: In Section 4 I felt that the draft should note the limitations of the models considered here. Noteably, where the Content Providers do NOT directly connect to the same network as the end users of the content, then this draft does not address the business or technical requirements. Should it? i.e. where users of service provider A attempt to connect content that is delivered from service provider B what guidance does this document offer? Also on page 12 Figure 3 is completely unreadable - perhaps it should be broken into a number of figures? The accompanying text is also unhelpful to decode the Figure. When the fogure is revised, this text would also be revised. Nits: page 1 Because many services such as television broadcasting require huge bandwidth (e.g., 6Mbit/s) 6Mbps is NOT "huge" IP multicast is used as an efficient delivery mechanism for CDS. s/is/may/ page 2 This memo lists the requirements of a business model in which the NSP provides CDS using multicast as one such contractible service. please define "NSP" with the first use. 2.1. Definitions Authentication: action for identifying a user as a genuine one. is there a better term other than "genuine"? perhaps "correctly identifying the end user" Authorization: action for giving permission for a user to access content or the network. page 3 User-based accounting: actions for grasping each user's behavior, when she/he starts/stops to receive a channel, which channel she/he receives, etc. I have no idea what "grasping" is intended to mean in this context. page 5 In this model the networks for CDS contain three different types of entities: Content Provider (CP), Network Service Provider (NSP), and user clients. please expand the acroynums on FIRST use only. page 7 With current protocols (IGMP/MLD), the sender cannot distinguish which receivers (end hosts) are actually receiving the information. The sender must rely on the information from the multicasting routers. This can be complicated if the sender and routers are maintained by different entities. Furthermore, the current user associated with receiver must be identified. What is the purpose of this paragraph? I thought that the section was "Information Required by Entities to Support the Proposed Business Model" and not part of the motivation section
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt… Geoff Huston