Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Luc André Burdet <[e-mail]>]

Hi Éric, Mankamana & John,

Just read -19 viz this thread.
The IGMP/MLD duality has been seen before and in previous cases (RFC4604) it was explicitly called out also  (for good cause: IGMP Membership vs MLD Listener,  IGMP Leave vs MLD Done, etc)



RFC3376:

   In this document, unless otherwise qualified, the capitalized words

   "Query" and "Report" refer to IGMP Membership Queries and IGMP

   Version 3 Membership Reports, respectively.



RFC3810:

   In this document, unless otherwise qualified, the capitalized words

   "Query" and "Report" refer to MLD Multicast Listener Queries and MLD

   Version 2 Multicast Listener Reports, respectively.



RFC4604:

   Due to the commonality of function, the term "Group Management

   Protocol", or "GMP", will be used to refer to both IGMP and MLD.  The

   term "Source Filtering GMP", or "SFGMP", will be used to refer

   jointly to the IGMPv3 and MLDv2 group management protocols.




Could I propose just adding a small clarifying paragraph in Intro which does the same as those 3 and use that terminology?



The term "Group Management Protocol", or "GMP", was first defined in RFC4604 to address the commonality of function between IGMP and LMD.

In this document, unless otherwise qualified:

-    the capitalized words "GMP Query" refer to IGMP Membership Queries and MLD Multicast Listener Queries; and

-    the capitalized words "GMP Report" refer to IGMP Version X Membership Reports and MLD Version 2 Multicast Listener Reports.

s/ IGMP Membership Reports/GMP Reports/g


Regards,
Luc André

Luc André Burdet |  Cisco  |  [e-mail]  |  Tel: [phone]


From: BESS <[e-mail]> on behalf of Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <mankamis=[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, March 4, 2022 at 12:09
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>om>, John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]>rg>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>om>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi Eric,
Posted new revision addressing two of your comment

  1.  Latest comment about adding IGMP / MLD before terminology
  2.  Pending from last one, where section 4.1.1 numbers were getting reset without comment


Mankamana

From: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, March 4, 2022 at 7:42 AM
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>om>, John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]>rg>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>om>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thanks, positing update in 30 min.

Mankamana

From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, March 4, 2022 at 7:36 AM
To: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <[e-mail]>om>, John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]>rg>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>om>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Correct this will address my DISCUSS point if you also modify the line below, i.e., replace all IGMP by IGMP/MLD in the text until the terminology section states "IGMP means IGMP or MLD" (sic).

Regards

-éric


From: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 4 March 2022 at 16:33
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>om>, John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]>rg>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>rg>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>om>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>rg>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Eric,

These hosts/VMs express their interests in multicast groups on a
   given subnet/VLAN by sending IGMP Membership Reports (Joins) for. >> Adding MLD here too ?
   their interested multicast group(s).  Furthermore, an IGMP router
   periodically sends membership queries to find out if there are hosts
   on that subnet that are still interested in receiving multicast
   traffic for that group.  The IGMP/MLD Proxy solution described in
   this draft accomplishes has three objectives:


does this change look ok ?

From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, March 4, 2022 at 7:29 AM
To: John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]>rg>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>om>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hello John,

Thanks for your quick reply, even if I am unsure how to read " Yours Irrespectively," as I am not an English-native person.

Thank you for pointing me to the new sections 9.1.2 & others => I will update my DISCUSS on this point w/o sending another email.

But section 1 still mentions only IGMP and never MLD except for "IGMP/MLD" proxy, this is trivial to fix, so I suggest to the authors to update the draft.

Regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: iesg <[e-mail]> on behalf of John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 4 March 2022 at 15:01
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>om>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>rg>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>om>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>rg>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

    Hi,

    Snipped, comments inline

    Yours Irrespectively,

    John


    Juniper Business Use Only

    > -----Original Message-----

    > DISCUSS:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > As Martin Vigoureux's term is near its end, I took the liberty to re-evaluate the
    > ballot status of this document and clearing parts of my original block DISCUSS
    > points and many of my original non-blocking COMMENT points.
    >
    > See below this line for updated version
    > ----------------------------------------------
    >
    > Thank you for the work put into this document. I have to state that I am neither
    > a EVPN expert not a multicast one.
    >
    > Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (probably easy to address),
    > some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if
    > only for my own education), and some nits.
    >
    > Special thanks to Stéphane Litkowski for his shepherd's write-up about the WG
    > consensus.
    >
    > I hope that this helps to improve the document,
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > -éric
    >
    > == DISCUSS ==
    >
    > The text covers in details how to map MLD/IGMP into BGP routes but does not
    > say a word on how to recreate the MLD/IGMP packets. Should there be any such
    > specification (e.g., in section 4.1) ?

    [JD]  We added:

    9.1.2.  Reconstructing IGMP / MLD Membership Reports from Selective Multicast Route

    9.2.2.  Reconstructing IGMP / MLD Membership Reports from Multicast Membership Report Sync Route

    9.3.2.  Reconstructing IGMP / MLD Leave from Multicast Leave Sync Route

    >
    > -- Section 1 --
    > In the same vein, is it about IGMP only ? Or does it include MLD as well ? It is
    > really unclear.

    [JD]  The Abstract states:   This document describes how to support efficiently endpoints running IGMP
    (Internet Group Management Protocol) or MLD (Multicast Listener  Discovery) for the multicast services
    over an EVPN network by incorporating IGMP/MLD proxy procedures on EVPN (Ethernet VPN) PEs.

    We also added this paragraph to section 3 at Ben's behest:

    It is important to note when there is text considering whether a PE indicates support for IGMP proxying,
    the corresponding behavior has a natural analogue for indication of support for MLD proxying, and the
    analogous requirements apply as well.