[Igmp-mld-bis] IGMPv3 / MLDv2 survey

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay in setting this up.  I have launched a (draft) survey at:
https://jisc.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/survey-on-implementations-and-deployment-of-igmpv3-and-mld

I have set a password of ietfpim for now.  I used an IETF logo rather than the Jisc one.

I have tried to add some logic to allow vendors and/or operators to use the same questionnaire.

Please test vigorously and check it captures the spirit of the draft correctly.

Some questions for you -

- which questions should be compulsory?

- should the anonymous question come before we ask names etc?

- should the issues with fallback be a y/n answer (as is) or a “What issues have you had with…” free text?

- I added a final “any other comments” type question.  Is that ok?

While you consider those, I’ll find out why each question has a pointless “More info” box next to it.

Bes6t wishes,
Tim

On 31 Oct 2019, at 10:24, Olufemi Komolafe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


On 30 Oct 2019, at 17:14, Tim Chown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

OK, I’ll look on Friday or the weekend; I’m afraid work is too crazy until then.

To double check, it’s from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-01, right?

Also at some point we need to change it to say I now work for Jisc, which is the UK national research and education network. I’m a Visiting Fellow at the uni, but my primary work is now Jisc.

Thanks Tim.  The draft currently says the following about you:


Tim Chown has kindly agreed to anonymize the responses to this
   questionnaire.  Tim has considerable multicast expertise but has no
   direct financial interest in this matter nor ties to any of the
   vendors involved.  Tim works at University of Southampton in the UK
   and has been active in the IETF for many years.

Please can you let me know what the updated text should say and I will modify it the draft.

Also, can I say on the draft that the survey will be carried out using Jisc survey tools? Or should I just leave it as is?  Currently it says:


An online survey tool such as Surveymonkey will be used in order make
   the submission and processing of returns as convenient as possible.


Regards,
Femi


Tim

On 30 Oct 2019, at 16:47, Michael McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Yes, its ready to go. Please feel free to send a note to the wg or Stig and I are happy to do it if you prefer.

Thanks!
mike

From: Olufemi Komolafe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 6:31 AM
To: Tim Chown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Stig Venaas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Michael McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Mike McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] New draft posted

Tim,

On 30 Oct 2019, at 11:54, Tim Chown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi,

Jisc has a survey tools, so I think we can use that.

Sounds ideal.  Thanks.

Once you’ve set the survey and told me estimated response numbers, I can check.


Stig & Mike, do you think the survey is ready to go out?  Perhaps we can prompt the WG for some last minute feedback before we launch it?

Regards,
Femi


Tim






On 30 Oct 2019, at 11:27, Tim Chown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On 30 Oct 2019, at 11:19, Olufemi Komolafe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Tim,

On 30 Oct 2019, at 07:16, Tim Chown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

The survey sounds good to me.

We can point NANOG (and other NOGs, like UKNOF, and the R&E campus communities) at that.

Are we thinking text-based or using something like SurveyMonkey?


I think the intention is to use something like SurveyMonkey.  And I actually think it might be best for you to create an account and transpose the questions from the draft to an online tool since you are the only one that should have access to the raw responses. Is this something you are willing/able to do?

I’m reasonably experienced with SurveyMonkey.

But note that if we expect a large number of responses, or want several questions, the free version may not suffice.  Do any of us have access to a paid version?

I can check what Jisc might have available.

Tim



Regards,
Femi




Tim


On 30 Oct 2019, at 03:04, Stig Venaas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi

It's not strictly needed, but I think it is helpful, and the hardest part, creating the survey, is already done. I think we should move forward.

Without the survey we can only speculate about what is out there. I think it is really useful data.

Stig


On Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 18:04 Michael McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi all,

I had a chat with Alyssa Cooper, here at Nanog, to discuss how best to engage the operators to move an rfc to internet standard. She recommended not doing a survey, saying its probably unnecessary. We can certainly still send it as it worked with pim-sm. Or we can simply email the nanog list (and I2 and ?) and explain our intention to move 3376/3810 to Internet standard and see if they +1.

What say ye?
mike

From: Igmp-mld-bis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 4:25 PM
To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Tim Chown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Stig Venaas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mike McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] New draft posted

Done

From: Igmp-mld-bis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Olufemi Komolafe <femi=[e-mail]<mailto:femi=[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 4:23 PM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Tim Chown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Stig Venaas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Mike McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] New draft posted

The naming of the drafts has been a bit messy.  We’ve had:
draft-volunteers-pim-igmp-mld-bis-00.txt
draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-bis-00
draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-00

Rather than creating a new document the WG chairs suggested creating draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-01 which I have just posted.  The -00 does not have the email address of some of the co-authors including myself.  Therefore, can someone whose email address was on the previous revision and so got a notification please approve the publication?

Regards,
Femi


On 28 Oct 2019, at 01:15, Olufemi Komolafe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

HI,

I’ve posted the updated version of the draft.  I could not update the original draft which has since expired as my email address was omitted on the original draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/102921/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fsubmit%2Fstatus%2F102921%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7C369ad59f851b49af003a08d75d3d740e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637080390847893245&sdata=ccYFmKiyAsayOjs32YKVOlyjPpSBFCNr7PHT96MK%2BXo%3D&reserved=0>) and so I’ve simply posted a new draft which I’ve attached FYI.

Regards,
Femi

<draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-update-survey-00.txt>