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

Return-Path: <jwa.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48611A911D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:58:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 cp46Jj_MyVte for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:58:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22b.google.com (mail-qc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22b]) (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 DC3831A90C6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qcvx3 with SMTP id x3so15394463qcv.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:58:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=c0hroEh35/Qx8p5oHUSW7/PjyEcUi1oiS7QuwVhztXA=; b=W/lSoMVq8kpGDLsBizs/9BgZwHyTY1b7APpwIb9g3XIGdoxZP5zQZcn4hme59CF5pu YFez1Ty+IikD2Ne3hY3Rp9zsSh/sxhGV3jhRgHEQQaq+lXl1om6/hfsVznG0j7BfJPMi H1J8fu1tjYCguMIBl2lG+T9qu6ki6v9Cq1xyGYtUAX17s0jKTtkKJKY3Wtm2MzrVxQYR 2QpCTzFMu+zSat09ps0dZy561td4bvSZDbdLptd171F8N8JHTPUirq2AXuCUrVQNe1q2 e4jJf6oWmvOTYG4X5ZrpYF7iq58eK6H1K+wYgJpWRruG4nm/ptOWoAVNpCq0rWGZ4Egw ETdg==
X-Received: by 10.140.38.197 with SMTP id t63mr30110943qgt.61.1425063536144; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.23] ([69.156.25.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o68sm3162677qhb.4.2015.02.27.10.58.55 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:58:55 -0800 (PST)
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>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:11:51 -0800
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:58:58 -0000

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.
> 
>