Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions regarding this document's
title:
a.) Per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), abbreviations should be
expanded in document titles and upon first use in the document. How would you
like to expand "CDN" in the title and running text?
b.) In addition, we note "TreeDN" is not expanded in the document. Is TreeDN
meant to be an abbreviation or just a general term? Please let us know how
to update the document's title to better reflect your intent.
Original:
TreeDN- Tree-based CDNs for Live Streaming to Mass Audiences
Perhaps 1 (describes TreeDN as a term):
TreeDN: Tree-Based Content Delivery Network (CDN) for Live
Streaming to Mass Audiences
or
Perhaps 2 (TreeDN appears to be an abbreviation):
Tree-Based Content Delivery Network (TreeDN) for Live Streaming
to Mass Audiences
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] The RFC Style Guide
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html#section-4) states that RFCs
must have an Introduction. We have added an Introduction and copied in
text from the Abstract; please review and let us know if any changes or
updates should be made. -->
3) <!-- [rfced] We note that MUST and SHOULD are capitalized in Sections 7.1 and
7.2. These appear to be the requirement key words defined in RFC 2119, so
we have added the paragraph describing their usage and cited RFCs 2119
and 8174 as normative references. If that was not your intention, please let
us know any objections. -->
4) <!-- [rfced] FYI - For readability, we have updated the text below as
follows. Please review and let us know any objections.
Original:
To achieve ubiquitous availability on the global Internet, this
essentially means nearly every interface on every router and firewall
between all end hosts must support a multicast routing protocol like
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM- SM) [RFC7761] or
Multipoint Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP) [RFC6388].
Current:
To achieve ubiquitous availability on the global Internet, this
essentially means that nearly every interface on every router and
firewall between all end hosts must support a multicast routing protocol
(such as Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM- SM) [RFC7761]
or the Multipoint Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP) [RFC6388]).
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions regarding the text below.
a.) Although the term "SR P2MP" does appear in RFC 9524, RFC 9524
cites the Internet-Draft "draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-10"
[P2MP-POLICY] as the source of this term. Should the citation to
"[RFC9524]" be updated to "[P2MP-POLICY]" instead?
b.) Per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), abbreviations should be
expanded upon first use. How would you like to expand "VRF" below? Note that
RFC 9300 uses "Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF)".
Original:
However, any multicast routing protocol
capable of supporting SSM can be used as a TreeDN native on-net, such
as mLDP, Global Table Multicast (GTM) [RFC7716] and BGP-based
Multicast [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast], or even BGP-MVPN [RFC6513]
for those operators who carry the global routing table in a VRF.
Likewise, any data plane technology that supports SSM, including BIER
[RFC8279] and SR-P2MP [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment] can
be used.
Perhaps:
However, any multicast routing protocol
capable of supporting SSM can be used as a TreeDN native on-net, such
as mLDP, Global Table Multicast (GTM) [RFC7716] and BGP-based
Multicast [BGP-MULTICAST], or even BGP Multicast VPN (BGP-MVPN)
[RFC6513] for those operators who carry the global Virtual Routing
and Forwarding (VRF) table. Likewise, any data plane technology that
supports SSM, including Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279]
and Segment Routing (SR) Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) [P2MP-POLICY], can
be used.
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text below as follows?
Original:
In many cases, these issues are more related to TCP-UDP differences than
unicast- multicast differences, thus UDP-based solutions can be leveraged
to address most gaps.
Perhaps:
In many cases, these issues are more related to differences between TCP and
UDP than differences between unicast and multicast; thus, UDP-based
solutions can be leveraged to address most gaps.
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] May we update the text below as follows for ease of the reader?
Original:
Since SSM inherently implies unidirectional traffic flows from one to
many, mechanisms that rely on bidirectional communication between
receivers and the content provider, such as bespoke advertising,
telemetry data from receivers detailing end user experience,
distribution of decryption keys, switching to higher/lower bandwidth
streams, etc, are not well suited to SSM delivery.
Perhaps:
Since SSM inherently implies that unidirectional traffic flows from one to
many, mechanisms that rely on bidirectional communication between
receivers and the content provider (such as bespoke advertising,
telemetry data from receivers detailing end-user experience,
distribution of decryption keys, switching to higher or lower bandwidth
streams, etc.) are not well suited to SSM delivery.
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the text below to avoid the duplicate
appearance of these terms. Please review and let us know any objections.
Original:
DVB MABR [DVB-MABR] and MAUD [MAUD] extensively
describe an architecture that enables reliability and dynamic bitrate
adaptation.
DVB MABR [DVB-MABR] and
MAUD [MAUD] extensively describe an architecture that includes
encryption of multicast streams.
Current:
[DVB-MABR] and [MAUD] extensively describe an
architecture that enables reliability and dynamic bitrate adaptation.
[DVB-MABR] and [MAUD] extensively describe an architecture that
includes encryption of multicast streams.
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we add a noun to the text in parentheses below?
Original:
That is, even if unauthorized end hosts (eg, non-
paying) receive the datastream, without decryption keys, the data is
useless.
Perhaps:
That is, even if unauthorized end hosts (e.g., non-paying end hosts)
receive the data stream, without decryption keys, the data is useless.
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] May we update the text below for clarity? Please let us
know if it changes the sentence's intended meaning.
Original:
That is, the BGP peer advertising the
reachability of the source's subnet can do so in ways that can prefer
a particular path through the network for multicast distribution that
are not as easy to accomplish with traditional, destination-based
unicast routing.
Perhaps:
That is, the BGP peer advertising the
reachability of the source's subnet can do so in ways where
a particular path through the network is preferred for
multicast distribution; these methods are not as easy to
accomplish with traditional, destination-based unicast
routing.
-->
11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the use of the "/" character to separate terms
throughout this document and let us know if it may be updated for
clarity. In some cases, it may be unclear to the reader whether the "/"
stands for "and", "or", or "and/or".
Originals:
As Internet audience sizes for high-interest live events reach
unprecedented levels and bitrates climb to support 4K/8K/Augmented
Reality (AR)...
...(LISP) [RFC9300] can be utilized to deliver
content from multicast-enabled networks to end hosts that are
separated by portions of the network (at the last/middle/first mile)
that do not support multicast.
Decentralization/Democratization of Content Sourcing
That is, multicast routers maintain a forwarding cache of multicast flows
that usually includes the source address, group address, incoming/outgoing
interfaces and forwarding rate.
Additionally, since multicast leverages reverse-path forwarding
(RPF), the source of the content can potentially have a greater
influence over the path taken through the network from source to
native receivers/AMT relays.
In particular, Section 6 of [RFC7450] candidly notes that AMT, like UDP,
IGMP and MLD, provides no mechanisms for ensuring message delivery or
integrity, nor does it provide confidentiality, since sources/groups joined
through IGMP/MLD could be associated with the particular content being
requested.
-->
12) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations
a) FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
BGP Multicast VPN (BGP-MVPN)
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
European Organisation for the Exploitation of
Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT)
Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)
Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)
Segment Routing (SR)
-->
13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
a.) For example, please consider whether various instances of "native" and
"natively" should be updated throughout this document.
b.) In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated for
clarity. While the NIST website <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/
nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> indicates
that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. "Tradition"
is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/kf/kc
On Dec 18, 2024, at 6:30 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2024/12/18
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9706.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9706.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9706.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9706.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9706-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9706-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9706-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9706
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9706 (draft-ietf-mops-treedn-07)
Title : TreeDN- Tree-based CDNs for Live Streaming to Mass Audiences
Author(s) : L. Giuliano, C. Lenart, R. Adam
WG Chair(s) : Leslie Daigle, Kyle Rose
Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Mahesh Jethanandani
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
