Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.txt> (Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)) to Internet Standard

John William Atwood <jwa.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 18:58 UTC

Message-ID: <54F0BE6D.9030305@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:58:53 -0500
From: John William Atwood <jwa.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.txt> (Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)) to Internet Standard
References: <20150213174210.6909.43630.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150213174210.6909.43630.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3Ok3xEgjKvFy65H34uik41f_xrE>
Precedence: list

In the following, I will refer to draft-ietf-pim-4601bis as simply
"4601bis".

RFC 4601 has been updated by several RFCs:

RFC 5059 Bootstrap Router (BSR) Mechanism for Protocol
         Independent Multicast (PIM)
RFC 5796 Authentication and Confidentiality in Protocol
         Independent Multicast Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
         Link-Local Messages
RFC 6226 PIM Group-to-Rendezvous-Point Mapping

4601bis refers to RFC 5059 in Section 3.7.  The new text is identical to
the text in RFC 4601, although the reference in RFC 4601 is to the
Internet Draft that became RFC 5059.

4601bis makes no reference to RFC 5796.  Given that RFC 5796 alters the
preferred IPsec solution (AH is "recommended" in RFC 4601, while RFC
5796 says that implementations "MUST support ESP and MAY support AH"),
and given that RFC 5796 provides considerable detail on the use of IPsec
to protect link-local messages for PIM-SM, RFC 5796 should be
specifically referenced in Section 6.3 of 4601bis.

4601bis makes no reference to RFC 6226.  Given that RFC 6226 alters the
algorithm for determining the Rendezvous Point, RFC 6226 should be
specifically mentioned in Section 3.7 of 4601bis.  The authors should
also consider whether to eliminate Section 4.7.1 and replace it with a
pointer to RFC 6226, to reduce it and add a pointer to RFC 6226, or to
leave it unchanged.

Suggested text for some of these changes has been supplied to the
authors of 4601bis.

  Bill Atwood

On 13/02/2015 12:42 PM, The IESG wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast
> WG (pim) to consider the following document:
> - 'Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
>    Specification (Revised)'
>   <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.txt> as Internet Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-02-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
>    This document specifies Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode
>    (PIM-SM).  PIM-SM is a multicast routing protocol that can use the
>    underlying unicast routing information base or a separate multicast-
>    capable routing information base.  It builds unidirectional shared
>    trees rooted at a Rendezvous Point (RP) per group, and optionally
>    creates shortest-path trees per source.
> 
>    This document addresses errata filed against RFC 4601, and removes
>    the optional (*,*,RP) feature that lacks sufficient deployment
>    experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
>

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.txt>… John William Atwood