Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] IGMPv3 / MLDv2 survey

Tim Chown <> Mon, 18 November 2019 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CDDE120953 for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 01:44:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GPNokKQOGjgl for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 01:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74A45120906 for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 01:44:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mimecast20170213; t=1574070279; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9DXqtondTn1/OE1t3ZV5nQYmcO/JLPZGGDH5FnHWmLo=; b=e0kJJdZNXYsxxwLToeE2XJXlEtMkoi8mEiv4uLGpOl9ExzJ9azoXvCUPdCpp0f1kIQpadB lu+fxJgotWywDYxnQmVIyMA/hZFIw9rNcVZAsiED2J6fIpZb8U/r8ayjruH2vKf6SSKwh/ Ee08D/JyC+a0A34NuhBXETFNFVNexRc=
Received: from ( []) (Using TLS) by with ESMTP id uk-mta-63-TcRvA6rUMyS2YW5W5szmow-1; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:44:36 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2474.7; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:44:32 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::b4d6:d110:ca1b:bbb0]) by ([fe80::b4d6:d110:ca1b:bbb0%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2474.012; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:44:32 +0000
From: Tim Chown <>
To: Stig Venaas <>
CC: Olufemi Komolafe <>, Michael McBride <>, "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <>, "" <>, Mike McBride <>
Thread-Topic: IGMPv3 / MLDv2 survey
Thread-Index: AQHVnUypXKIs3gcFlk+fgyRbujoHraeQdnWAgAA4i4A=
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:44:32 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
x-originating-ip: [2001:a88:d510:1101:a80e:201b:4b94:134f]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bf79621a-7e7e-4bee-33fd-08d76c0bea49
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR07MB4546:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0225B0D5BC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(346002)(136003)(376002)(39850400004)(396003)(366004)(199004)(189003)(53754006)(6116002)(6306002)(54906003)(71200400001)(71190400001)(5660300002)(6512007)(5024004)(256004)(14444005)(54896002)(236005)(33656002)(486006)(2616005)(6246003)(476003)(11346002)(99286004)(66574012)(76176011)(91956017)(25786009)(50226002)(36756003)(76116006)(102836004)(2906002)(6486002)(81166006)(81156014)(6436002)(8936002)(8676002)(229853002)(66476007)(66556008)(53546011)(64756008)(6506007)(7736002)(66446008)(786003)(316002)(4326008)(606006)(6916009)(446003)(14454004)(478600001)(46003)(86362001)(66946007)(186003)(966005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR07MB4546;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: jHBKkTl9r/1lFF1UQtuOJJ9GMOPC9SdDz24E3DuHQlylQes3MJ6jtFnM0M2r6acUgEvKxBVOtvqWBNzIztvzGcQZLNOxdlRbvnxF87j8HypDMKRf2QpoCU3pCrQGW6Yjn8b2kpvMghm1Xc+f2ZqC4hmqJW9L78xTgSnnWLf/RY9zM0jU2K/2yIUtakHxBRFjfIUsa/GL1dPgwD99jO3FOp6mKk6cGM21p7p2IBFFqRI773RV8TP9QXAY3Wb4PxpYF1o4VEoYCh75wKaK2E3F7PwPVYc6GGRlVOxkqV4L+jQLupNf3RIYEimm4kS4FYKK1yXP9D+rj2C5hAMcRjPY4uGPi1832nmRNkLeJo3GQ2mod+UWfyZhisJoT+NEpHH/isw6Khkn/ILccDTgcyFUkBid475OmjPcKTapPFaOAjhSYfFfph3TWtEAxr5lEyacxhLBTRj9Kp44iWolJlDmP7WHvglD6UHgmQ8adRFjz1w=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bf79621a-7e7e-4bee-33fd-08d76c0bea49
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Nov 2019 09:44:32.6620 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ZCoKFXLodmVJbwDpHZnrURRp9TCTHFahGflJNHLFlzHOzxDQyJw16+dvns2aGfVTonMlysmkBN5EM2ccEPxwgA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR07MB4546
X-MC-Unique: TcRvA6rUMyS2YW5W5szmow-1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BFBB24401D2840E2AEA9972BEBA56789jiscacuk_"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] IGMPv3 / MLDv2 survey
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:44:51 -0000


What’s there now is a draft, though it’s “launched” in that anyone with the link and passwd can complete it.  It should be possible to fill in both parts, though we’d expect most people to fill in one or the other.  Stepping through it on Thursday seems a good idea so there is a last chance to tweak the survey before full launch.

There are some questions below we need to consider, including the one around anonymity - is it that we want to allow people to fill it in without providing name and affiliation, or that when they do we (I) will not disclose their name or affiliation in processing or distributing the results?

I think I’m about 8 hours behind you here in the UK so won’t be able to join remotely (5.30am my time).


On 18 Nov 2019, at 06:22, Stig Venaas <<>> wrote:

Thanks Tim!

Would anyone be able to present this in the pim meeting, or I can do
it. I think we could quickly page through the survey so people get
some idea what we're doing. And the idea is to launch the survey in a
few weeks?


On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 5:41 AM Tim Chown <<>> wrote:

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay in setting this up.  I have launched a (draft) survey at:

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,

On 31 Oct 2019, at 10:24, Olufemi Komolafe <> wrote:

On 30 Oct 2019, at 17:14, Tim Chown <> 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, 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.



On 30 Oct 2019, at 16:47, Michael McBride <> 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.


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


On 30 Oct 2019, at 11:54, Tim Chown <> wrote:


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?



On 30 Oct 2019, at 11:27, Tim Chown <> wrote:

On 30 Oct 2019, at 11:19, Olufemi Komolafe <> wrote:


On 30 Oct 2019, at 07:16, Tim Chown <> 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.




On 30 Oct 2019, at 03:04, Stig Venaas <> wrote:


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.


On Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 18:04 Michael McBride <> 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?

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


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

The naming of the drafts has been a bit messy.  We’ve had:

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?


On 28 Oct 2019, at 01:15, Olufemi Komolafe <> wrote:


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 ( and so I’ve simply posted a new draft which I’ve attached FYI.