Subject: Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 02:48:04 +0000

Thanks, changed version on the way .

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 12:58 PM
To: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi!

Yes, please use terminology consistent with the existing RFCs.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On December 8, 2021 at 6:14:34 PM, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) (
[email-masked]) wrote:

Hi Alvaro,
while i wait for PIM working group to provide and submit the next revision
this Friday. I have question about one of the comment. Please let me know
if these changes are something you expecting.

   - IGMP Join changes to Membership Report
   - IGMP Join Sync changes to Membership Report Sync
   - All mention of Join changes to Membership Report

Since IGMP Join Sync has been terminology getting used for long with this
draft, wanted to make sure this is ok before i publish the changed version.
Though i was trying to see if RFC3376 uses term Join. It looks like it
does. but many places it uses Membership reports for actual packet on wire.

Mankamana

On 11/18/21 12:50 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:

On November 17, 2021 at 3:11:49 PM, Mankamana Mishra wrote:

Mankamana:

Hi!

...

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

First of all, I am surprised that a document related to IGMP/MLD was not sent
to the pim WG for review. I can't find any mention of this draft in the pim
WG's archive.

Mankamana: As in contributor to this document, all the procedures are very
much limited to BGP overlay signaling. Not sure which aspect would be
reviewed by PIM WG. This draft does not change any behavior of PIM or IGMP