IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] June 16 Meeting Notes

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Wed, 16 June 2021 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: igmp-mld-bis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: igmp-mld-bis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B31E93A1B89 for <igmp-mld-bis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 07:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 y4TZofId1Y5A for <igmp-mld-bis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 07:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 853BC3A1B83 for <igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 07:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:51]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B24754804D; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 16:54:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 256A74E779C; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 16:54:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 16:54:08 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi=40arista.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, abudhira@cisco.com, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <20210616145408.GD12022@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <CCAC466E-2658-443B-8E5C-D057B5A6D124@arista.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CCAC466E-2658-443B-8E5C-D057B5A6D124@arista.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/igmp-mld-bis/71D7ptQ_NzHjDUJZTgaKUrfYsYc>
Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] June 16 Meeting Notes
X-BeenThere: igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IGMPv3/MLDv2 <igmp-mld-bis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/igmp-mld-bis>, <mailto:igmp-mld-bis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/igmp-mld-bis/>
List-Post: <mailto:igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:igmp-mld-bis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis>, <mailto:igmp-mld-bis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:54:19 -0000

Hey folks,

Please send a reminder of the invite a day before, i completely missed out on the
meeting because i didn't see a reminder.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 03:44:31PM +0100, Olufemi Komolafe wrote:
> Attendees: Brian, Anuj, Stig, Femi
> 
> Discussed possibly moving the meeting back 2 hours in the future, to better accommodate West Coast USA (especially as there is no regular attendee based in Asia)
> 
> Agreed to try to write document targeted at IETF 111.  Cut off date is July 12.
> + proposal is to try to write to -bis-00 documents based on errata
> 
> Discussion about issue 3: https://github.com/ietf-wg-pim/igmp-mld-bis/issues/3 <https://github.com/ietf-wg-pim/igmp-mld-bis/issues/3>
> + Anuj went over his findings
> + Brian suggested similar issue may exist for MLDv2
> + Reviewed Stig???s original email on this errata (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/s9dMx_O3cFUyn38CHj81yw4Wp2o/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/s9dMx_O3cFUyn38CHj81yw4Wp2o/>)
> + Older queriers have no concept of querier interval?
> + Older Version Querier Present timeout??? (RFC 3376, Section 8.12) vs ???Other Querier Present Interval???  (RFC 3376, Section 8.5)?
> + RFC 2236, Section 8.11 defines ???Version 1 Router Present Timeout??? to be 400s.  Source of 400s?  (Perhaps due to missing timer definitions in RFC 1112: ???Each timer is set to a different, randomly-chosen value between zero and D seconds.???)
> + Will be interesting to find out what Linux and other existing implementations have done for RFC 3376, Section 8.12.
> + Should host assume default querier interval since host has no way of knowing actual querier interval and is unlikely to measure it?
> 
> Brief discussion about issue 4: https://github.com/ietf-wg-pim/igmp-mld-bis/issues/4 <https://github.com/ietf-wg-pim/igmp-mld-bis/issues/4>
> + Agreement that comment addresses issue.
> 
> AI Stig: Schedule meetings 2 hours earlier, after checking change works for all participants
> AI Anuj: Check for consistency between formula for calculating "Older version querier present time out??? (RFC 3376, Section 8.12) and ???Other querier present interval???  (RFC 3376,Section 8.5)
> AI Tim: How does Linux implement (RFC 3376, Section 8.12)?  Other popular hosts implementation? 
> AI Brian: Create initial -bis-00 documents using XML templates
> AI All: Any outstanding AIs from June 2 meeting
> 
> Regards,
> Femi

> -- 
> Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
> Igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis


-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email