Subject: [MBONED] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:49:38 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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]."

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

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?

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.