Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 11 March 2022 15:35 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4493A16EA;
Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:35:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id nDUy6mPxOamA; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:35:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62f.google.com (mail-ej1-x62f.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60FA73A16F2;
Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:35:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id qt6so19846219ejb.11;
Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:35:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=kog5FyF9jtPSjlp49PFXFc/KwYdxm0G0XKUxZeNK/1U=;
b=Fic1z+Txt1kBWHCGd9eN5NULFungZW0vZj4gfYThd3Gu6BHsB3G5GOsX+eMymqA7MD
N/YQfesEMV8Q+zaGIdMGUHsj1MMFpbQJ2l2HfmjWDbpCzg1e7ct8/Lwud2w6FdFIjIeH
AyEDyhKHWYcrVXqyfQJZYiJJ4nfLauF0OpuWVvjLRNSqDbF003gzbt9f4IaYayd8Jagf
NouXWTssOl2jf0JDNwnIQUZTlTOH1e+q3jh81hBJ/78+OPpmfVmEEYJbzrjniu3LzYsE
bVGxGttBWO1WTRp+w3AVxl27IqUguIY/ZqDfQKUQh/qlrF+LE0A4zFANmBtHh3EHJsFu
VLaw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=kog5FyF9jtPSjlp49PFXFc/KwYdxm0G0XKUxZeNK/1U=;
b=U1WxDqAiMqrC2cPbKQXFjZJxeBvqOhSxoJsxPsAVxEXI8xd9d1sXgCbf0zbDwwsXKp
0R5MiqFZClJqWV6FASW97EnKNwLSHlcHOhB4eTaEONhBiXzk65XmyMm8XiIIfWDzsCLt
C2lWFNK94t4GyMzR064RmJ/Kyccpw3mPeJXZl3TVgnyHsZLDm5Ul1EjBpAHW134mUWj4
70D+Qrp22qt1Dv0w3nu1cSBFEH6wPAKmRouNiolFEfpoIQnqGcsrlGeEAv6f6Rnu+T5T
ZPaUrF9E7dG4XjehRbizZpTElvPfgbTAcwvU28Pyjkjin5RZcVp+oE8tRM5zd9LF+lTQ
3hJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ECBznR/LrjtiVlQGgjwN2u+XSfxN7YJtvdePKi3tpxnKhgvnF
2w5aGEW1tlfqWDq1WHW2VxSPYt44wucQSQRwkCU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy0hssUFcS8NBMxUZ17mwRbCZXuT7KDeFOJRcc4PFitDOKKAfDW0jvnIdCTlvjjsqF5StEq867wBlEaWU09Cj4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:99c2:b0:6d7:4a6a:e35d with SMTP id
s2-20020a17090699c200b006d74a6ae35dmr8893085ejn.633.1647012937217; Fri, 11
Mar 2022 07:35:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with
HTTPREST; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:35:36 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB272584BDDC696A6B97920362DF539@BYAPR11MB2725.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <163535541146.31356.5788998139231162845@ietfa.amsl.com>
<BYAPR11MB272513BFE26ECBA8518153C3DF9A9@BYAPR11MB2725.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
<CAMMESszKrgNHvTbu7NLvDeV4VBiYJfzdJBrz90QD6t5xOQprvw@mail.gmail.com>
<5f4b3ec5-6de3-65b3-037a-8a63a455bbcc@cisco.com>
<BYAPR11MB272584BDDC696A6B97920362DF539@BYAPR11MB2725.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:35:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESszDWdc4=UE-owovZb11dzgFBirNPRp1BHrbWinQ09Zz0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org"
<draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org>,
"slitkows.ietf@gmail.com" <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>,
"bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>,
"bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/_LR-46OjdlXMrQMxsk37JsC617I>
Subject: Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>,
<mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>,
<mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:35:44 -0000
On January 13, 2022 at 5:11:26 PM, Mankamana Mishra wrote: Mankamana: Hi! Sorry for the delay. ... > Apart from that there were no concern from PIM WG . I'm sad because we couldn't find interest in pim to do a thorough review. I don't translate that into "no concern", but that is just a difference of opinion. I'm going to change my ballot to ABSTAIN as I still think that not requiring IGMPv1 contradicts the current IGMP standard. By ABSTAINing I'm basically removing my objection to the publication. > Open Question : > > Statements about IGMP V1, there was no concern from PIM WG or BESS WG either. > Do you want any thing specific to be mentioned in this draft ? I would be happier with the text as follows. [Because I'm ABSTAINing you don't have to change anything.] OLD> 10. IGMP Version 1 Membership Report This document does not provide any detail about IGMPv1 processing. Multicast working group are in process of deprecating uses of IGMPv1. Implementations MUST only use IGMPv2 and above for IPv4 and MLDv1 and above for IPv6. IGMP V1 routes MUST be considered as invalid and the PE MUST apply the "treat-as-withdraw" procedure as per [RFC7606]. Initial version of document did mention use of IGMPv1 and flag had provision to support IGMPv1. There may be an implementation which is deployed as initial version of document, to interop flag has not been changed. NEW> 10. IGMP Version 1 Membership Report This document does not provide any detail about IGMPv1 processing. Implementations are expected to only use IGMPv2 and above for IPv4 and MLDv1 and above for IPv6. IGMPv1 routes are considered invalid and the PE MUST apply the "treat-as-withdraw" procedure as per [RFC7606]. > Later inline for flag question, I have one way to handle this. Please let me > know your view and I can make the changes. I'm fine with that. Thanks! Alvaro.
- [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess… Alvaro Retana via Datatracker
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)