Subject: [MBONED] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 01:34:24 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-14: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my discuss and providing a detailed section on congestion
control. And thanks Yoshi for the TSV-ART review again!

-----------------------------
Old 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?

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.

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.