Subject: [MBONED] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:40:45 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-10: 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-driad-amt-discovery/

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

— Section 2.2 —

   1.  The end user starts the app, which issues a join to the (S,G):
       (198.51.100.15, 232.252.0.2).

What is 232.252.0.2, and where did it come from?  It would be good for the text
to introduce that.

— Section 2.3.2 —

   Among relay addresses that still have an equivalent preference after
   the above orderings, a gateway MUST make a non-deterministic choice
   for relay preference ordering, in order to support load balancing by
   DNS configurations that provide many relay options.

What do you have in mind here?  Random selection?  Something else?  If so, what
else that can be assured to be non-deterministic, given the "MUST"?

---

From: "Holland, Jake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 19:34:05 +0000

Hi Barry,

Thanks for the review.  Responses below

>    1.  The end user starts the app, which issues a join to the (S,G):

Thanks, good point.  I'll add it to the example explanation and the diagram.

OLD:
   In this simple example, the sender IP is 198.51.100.15, and the relay

NEW:
   In this simple example, the sender IP is 198.51.100.15, it is sending
   traffic to the group address 232.252.0.2, and the relay ...

> else that can be assured to be non-deterministic, given the "MUST"?

I was thinking "random or pseudorandom" and thought this phrasing was
cleaner.

I can change it to "random or pseudorandom", or if there's a better or more
normal way to phrase it I'd be happy to use that.  (I was worried "random" is
too strong, if taken literally.)

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:58:46 -0500

Hi, Jake, and thanks for the response.

>    traffic to the group address 232.252.0.2, and the relay ...

Excellent; thanks.

> too strong, if taken literally.)

I think "non-deterministic" is fine; I was mostly wondering whether
you had other things in mind.  It wouldn't be unreasonable to make the
text say something like "a non-deterministic choice (such as a
pseudorandom selection)", but use your judgment and no need to reply
further here.

Barry