Telechat Review of draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11
review-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11-tsvart-telechat-nishida-2017-10-12-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 14) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
| Deadline | 2017-10-12 | |
| Requested | 2017-10-09 | |
| Requested by | Mirja Kühlewind | |
| Authors | Percy Tarapore , Robert Sayko , Greg Shepherd , Toerless Eckert , Ramki Krishnan | |
| Draft last updated | 2017-10-12 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -10
by
Tomonori Takeda
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Barry Leiba (diff) Genart Last Call review of -10 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Nevil Brownlee (diff) Genart Telechat review of -11 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Tsvart Telechat review of -11 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff) |
|
| Comments |
AD request: Could be could to have another look at this regarding rate-adaption. I don't think there are any issues. However, if you can find someone to review this week, why not... |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Yoshifumi Nishida |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11-tsvart-telechat-nishida-2017-10-12
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 14) | |
| Result | Almost Ready | |
| Completed | 2017-10-12 |
review-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11-tsvart-telechat-nishida-2017-10-12-00
Document: draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11 Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida I've reviewed this document as part of TSV-ART's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised.When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art @ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. Summary: This document is almost ready for publication, but several points need to be clarified. 1: In Section 3.1b, " 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." I think we need to use rate-adaption approach in non-controlled network environments. However, it seems to me that texts look a bit ambiguous on this point as it just says it is recommended. Are there any other approach that doesn't require congestion control in this case? 2: The configuration described in Section 3.4 doesn't look very scalable to me as the traffic usage on I2 will be increased as the number of AMTs increases. This looks a solid disadvantage of this configuration. Also, we don't need any guidelines on this? 3: 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 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11#ref-BCP41>]." The text looks a bit ambiguous to me. Only live video streaming applications need to follow congestion control principle? "should consider use of .." sounds to me there will be some cases where they don't need it. But, I'm wondering what would be the cases. Also, I believe we also need to consider the bandwidth allocation for tunnels as well as multicast traffics, however, this is not very clear in the texts. Thanks, -- Yoshi