Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-07.txt

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

IETF last call completed without further comments.

Can I suggest 

OLD
   When a Group-to-RP mapping entry is created in the
   pimGroupMappingTable in the PIM-STD MIB[RFC5060], it would be
   acceptable to have an entry with an RP with address type 'unknown'
   and a PimMode of Dense Mode or SSM.  These entries would represent
   group ranges for Dense mode or SSM.

   Also all the entries which are already included in the SSM Range
   table in the IP Mcast MIB would be copied over to
   pimGroupMappingTable.  They would have a type of configSSM and an RP
   with address type 'unknown' as described above.

   The advantage of keeping all the ranges in the table would be that
   this table will contain all the known multicast group ranges.
NEW
   An implementation of this specification can continue to be managed
   using the PIM-STD-MIB [RFC5060]. When a Group-to-RP mapping entry is
   created in the pimGroupMappingTable the RP with address type in the
   pimGroupMappingRPAddressType object is set to unknown(0), and the 
   PIM Mode in the pimGroupMappingPimMode onject is set to either
   ssm(2) or dm(5) to represent group ranges for SSM or Dense mode.
   
   Also, all the entries which are already included in the SSM Range
   table in the IP Mcast MIB [insert reference] are copied to the 
   pimGroupMappingTable. Such entries have their type in the 
   pimGroupMappingOrigin object set to configSsm(3), and the RP
   address type in the pimGroupMappingRPAddressType object set to
   unknown(0) as described above.
END

In addition, you have a few other changes to make, so I will wait for a new revision before asking the IESG to review the document.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bharat Joshi [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 20 December 2010 02:35
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Andy Kessler (kessler)
> Cc: [e-mail]; General Area Review
> Team; Stig Venaas; Mike McBride (mmcbride)
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-07.txt
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  > 3. In section 8, "Clarification for MIB Objects", I'm not
> > >    sure what we have to say to be sure its understood that this
> > >    is a normative reference. Suggestions ?
> >
> > You know, maybe you need to have a MIB expert glance at this text,
> > for example the original MIB Doctor who reviewed the MIB module in
> > the first place. I'm not sure that any language I propose will be
> > any better than what you already have. However, if 'it would be
> > acceptable' becomes a MAY construct and 'would be copied' becomes
> > 'SHOULD be copied', then it's clearly normative.
> >
> > > Bharat, please spin a new version...
> >
> > Or you can wait to see if any other last call comments come in...
> >
> 
> Let us wait for other last call comments. I am hoping one of the MIB Doctors will
> comment on this and we can find a way to address this concern.
> 
> Regards,
> Bharat
> 
> > Thanks
> >    Brian Carpenter
> >
> >
> > On 2010-12-20 07:49, Andy Kessler (kessler) wrote:
> > > Ok, we have made progress.
> > >
> > > These are the suggested changes we need to make:
> > >
> > > 1. In Section 3, Existing Algorithm. Add a new sentence to
> > >    the end:
> > >
> > >    The full benefits of the new algorithm will not be realized
> > >    until it is widely deployed.
> > >
> > > 2. In section 5, Common use cases, first section "Default static
> > >    Group-to-RP mapping with dynamically learned entries", add
> > >    a sentence to the end:
> > >
> > >    This is not an issue for IPv6 Multicast address ranges.
> > >
> > > 3. In section 8, "Clarification for MIB Objects", I'm not
> > >    sure what we have to say to be sure its understood that this
> > >    is a normative reference. Suggestions ?
> > >
> > > 4. Section 5, Common use cases, remove the subsection "More use
> > >    cases".
> > >
> > > Bharat, please spin a new version with these changes when we
> > > resolve number 3 above.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 11:54 AM
> > > To: Andy Kessler (kessler)
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; General Area
> > Review Team; Bharat Joshi; Stig Venaas; Mike McBride (mmcbride)
> > > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-
> > 07.txt
> > >
> > > Hi Andy, thanks for responding so promptly. A few comments in line:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2010-12-18 18:36, Andy Kessler (kessler) wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for the review.
> > >> My comments are below annotated with Andy>
> > >>
> > >> Andy
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> > >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> > >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> > >>
> > >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> > comments
> > >> you may receive.
> > >>
> > >> Document: draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-07.txt
> > >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> > >> Review Date: 2010-12-18
> > >> IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-23
> > >> IESG Telechat date:
> > >>
> > >> Summary: In good shape, a few issues.
> > >> --------
> > >>
> > >> Major issues:
> > >> -------------
> > >>
> > >> 3.  Existing algorithm
> > >> ...
> > >>    The algorithm defined in this document updates algorithm defined
> > in
> > >>    PIM-SM ( Section 4.7.1 in [RFC4601]).  The new algorithm is
> > backward
> > >>    compatible and will produce the same result only if the Group-to-
> > RP
> > >>    mappings are learned from a single mapping source.
> > >>
> > >> A logical implication of the last sentence is that if some of the
> > Group-to-RP
> > >> mappings are learned from more than one mapping source, the new
> > algorithm might
> > >> not produce the same result as the existing algorithm. Is that
> > indeed the case,
> > >> and if so, don't we have a problem until all PIM-SM routers have
> > been updated?
> > >>
> > >> Andy> Most vendors today do not officially support deployments with
> > multiple
> > >> Andy> dynamic routing protocols. They probably have inconsistent
> > results now.
> > >> Andy> This algorithm will standardize the results for those vendors.
> > It will
> > >> Andy> be more consistent when all vendors do support the new
> > algorithm.
> > >
> > > OK. Maybe you could add a sentence to make it clear that adding the
> > new
> > > algorithm doesn't fix the problem completely until it's universally
> > deployed.
> > >
> > >> 5.  Common use cases
> > >>
> > >>    o  Default static Group-to-RP mappings with dynamically learned
> > >>       entries
> > >>
> > >>    Many network operators will have a dedicated infrastructure for
> > the
> > >>    standard multicast group range (224/4) and so might be using
> > >>    statically configured Group-to-RP mappings for this range.
> > >>
> > >> Please indicate whether this issue also applies to IPv6.
> > >>
> > >> Andy> There is no issue with IPv6. IPv4 has some older baggage
> > because
> > >> Andy> the 224/4 addressing scheme has been around since before there
> > was
> > >> Andy> SSM and BSR. IPv6 Multicast does not have that history.
> > >
> > > OK. For someone ignorant of the history, it might be worth adding
> > > "This issue does not arise for IPv6."
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 6.  Proposed algorithm
> > >> ...
> > >>    10.  From the remaining set of Group-to-RP Mappings we will
> > select
> > >>         the RP with the highest IP address.  This will serve as a
> > final
> > >>         tiebreaker.
> > >>
> > >> Please define "highest". Does it mean "greatest when considered as
> > an
> > >> unsigned integer"?
> > >>
> > >> Andy> This should be the same method that is used to pick
> > >> Andy> the highest IP address in many protocols. One I know well is
> > >> Andy> the way that a designated router is selected in RFC 4601 in
> > >> Andy> section 4.3.2. The main part of the function says:
> > >> Andy>      a.primary_ip_address > b.primary_ip_address
> > >> Andy> To me that has always meant you compare the first byte,
> > >> Andy> then the 2nd, the 3rd and then the 4th.
> > >
> > > and the 5th, etc, for IPv6 ;-)
> > >
> > >> Andy> I don't know where that would be defined. Maybe someone else
> > knows.
> > >> Andy> It is not defined in RFC 4601.
> > >
> > > I have no idea either. Maybe it's a term of art in routing protocols,
> > > so I won't insist; I was just looking at it from the viewpoint
> > > of a naive implementor.
> > >
> > >> 8.  Clarification for MIB Objects
> > >>
> > >>    When a Group-to-RP mapping entry is created in the
> > >>    pimGroupMappingTable in the PIM-STD MIB[RFC5060], it would be
> > >>    acceptable to have an entry with an RP with address type
> > 'unknown'
> > >>    and a PimMode of Dense Mode or SSM.  These entries would
> > represent
> > >>    group ranges for Dense mode or SSM.
> > >>
> > >>    Also all the entries which are already included in the SSM Range
> > >>    table in the IP Mcast MIB would be copied over to
> > >>    pimGroupMappingTable.  They would have a type of configSSM and an
> > RP
> > >>    with address type 'unknown' as described above.
> > >>
> > >> Is this section intended to be a normative update of RFC 5060, or is
> > >> it just commentary? The phrase "it would be acceptable" almost
> > sounds
> > >> like a normative MAY.
> > >>
> > >> Also, shouldn't it be 'unknown(0)' in the context of the MIB? (This
> > >> applies in three places in the draft.)
> > >>
> > >> Andy> At some point we received comments and requests to include all
> > >> Andy> the group mappings in this table - even for Dense Mode or SSM
> > >> Andy> which do not have an RP. We are merely stating that it OK to
> > >> Andy> do that and use the RP address and type (of the RP) of
> > unknown.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, it makes sense, but please make it very clear whether you
> > > are writing normatively or not.
> > >
> > >> Nits:
> > >> -----
> > >>
> > >> 5.  Common use cases
> > >> ...
> > >>    o  More use cases
> > >>
> > >>    By no means, the above list is complete.  Please drop a mail to
> > >>    'authors' if you see any other use case for this.
> > >>
> > >> This seems a bit strange to appear in the final RFC; at the least it
> > needs rewriting.
> > >>
> > >> Andy> I agree. That was for the draft and should be removed. Should
> > we
> > >> Andy> just remove the whole section ? Or change the wording to
> > somehow
> > >> Andy> say there are more use cases that will benefit from this
> > algorithm ?
> > >
> > > Either way is fine for me.
> > >
> > >> The checker says:
> > >>
> > >> == There are 1 instance of lines with multicast IPv4 addresses in
> > the
> > >>      document.  If these are generic example addresses, they should
> > be changed
> > >>      to use the 233.252.0.x range defined in RFC 5771
> > >>
> > >> Andy> We have discussed this before. We need to use the addresses
> > that in the
> > >> Andy> examples. 239/8 is the Administratively Scoped Block as
> > defined in RFC 5771.
> > >> Andy> Its the same thing for 239.100.0.0/16 in section 5. We were
> > told to add
> > >> Andy> the comment that says its an administratively scoped multicast
> > address
> > >> Andy> range. Using GLOP will not make the same point we are trying
> > to explain.
> > >
> > > Fair enough. Don't be surprised if someone in the IESG asks the same
> > question.
> > >
> > >    Brian
> 
> **************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
> This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended
> solely
> for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please
> notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not
> to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and
> any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken
> every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage
> you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your
> own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the
> right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-
> mail
> address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the
> Infosys e-mail system.
> ***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***