Subject: [MBONED] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 09:57:49 -0800

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-06: 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-deprecate-interdomain-asm/

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

** Section 4.1.  This section appears to provide multiple definitions of
“separate administrative entities”.  Per the paragraph “The more inclusive
interpretation of this recommendation …”, it wasn’t clear to me under what
circumstance the reader should use the more “inclusive interpretation”.

** Section 4.  This section would benefit from being clearer on who should act
on a few of the recommendation:

-- Section 4.3 – vendors/developers of multicast applications?

-- Section 4.4 – not clear who is supposed to develop this guidance?

-- Section 4.6 – not clear who is supposed to developing this guidance long term

** Editorial Nits:
-- Section 3.2.3. Typo. s/particularily/particularly/

-- Section 4.9.  Typo. s/implentations/implementations/

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 18:11:27 +0000

Hi Roman,

On 7 Jan 2020, at 17:57, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

** Section 4.1.  This section appears to provide multiple definitions of
“separate administrative entities”.

Perhaps we could change:

" The recommendation applies to the use of ASM between domains where

   either MSDP (IPv4) or Embedded-RP (IPv6) is used.

   An interdomain use of ASM multicast in the context of this document
   is one where PIM-SM with RPs/MSDP/Embedded-RP is run on routers
   operated by two or more separate administrative entities.”

to

  "The recommendation applies to the interdomain use of ASM multicast

   where PIM-SM with RPs, MSDP (IPv4) or Embedded-RP (IPv6) is run on

   routers operated by two or more separate administrative entities."

?

Per the paragraph “The more inclusive
interpretation of this recommendation …”, it wasn’t clear to me under what
circumstance the reader should use the more “inclusive interpretation”.

We have edited this recently in response to an area review.  What we’re trying to say is that in addition to the clearer cut interdomain applicability between two administrative entities (which we don’t specifically define) there are also some more subtle cases where the recommendation should be considered.

We can bolt on to the start of the section “Application developers should take particular note that…”

Well, this is a hint to the IETF that it could do so, but we also say at the end that it’s out of scope of this document.  So it’s desirable, but then we punt it.

The discussion was again that this could be IETF work.  We can make that clearer.

** Editorial Nits:

Thanks!

Tim