Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] Meet in Montreal?

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 23 July 2019 15:24 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 5EAE31203E1 for <igmp-mld-bis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 lnXyexGnQ1qC for <igmp-mld-bis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:24:29 -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 715F41203EC for <igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F1C2548353; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:24:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 53404440041; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:24:12 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:24:12 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi=40arista.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@ieee.org>, "igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org" <igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190723152412.xls7ocfnwmlnvkj3@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <F7E6E464-A65B-4920-91FA-52FE71F2FB87@arista.com> <CAOSSMjVLbQ2znHoMm6QC9sJLHM24ngDHZbp2cX_fxnA8fMJKGQ@mail.gmail.com> <F318396B-6553-48B5-A56B-EDA9A8E01B8D@cisco.com> <20190716195934.rty724quanksz2hp@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <F9B56DCD-5D7C-4DBA-BBD6-0A9C2039E34F@ieee.org> <4767384C-D17E-4E37-A264-CE783376F066@arista.com> <E46F8822-8F47-40DF-95D1-98BE7A956697@arista.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E46F8822-8F47-40DF-95D1-98BE7A956697@arista.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/igmp-mld-bis/gBzIeyf33S-hPKZEpTy9fEwSD7w>
Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] Meet in Montreal?
X-BeenThere: igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:24:40 -0000

Sounds good. Foyer = ground floor of hotel ?!

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:46:27AM -0400, Olufemi Komolafe wrote:
> Does meeting at noon today still work for the folks in Montreal?  If so, shall we just meet in the foyer and we can grab a spot to chat?
> 
> I think our goal should be to try to ensure there???s nothing outstanding and finalise what we should tell the WG chairs to try to progress this work, hopefully this week.
> 
> Regards,
> Femi
> 
> > On 19 Jul 2019, at 07:45, Olufemi Komolafe <femi@arista.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I???ll be there too.
> > 
> > So I believe we have Tim, Toerless, Hitoshi and myself.  Anyone else?
> > 
> > Shall we try to meet on Tuesday, then?  Say at noon?  Anyone that does not suit?
> > 
> > Nice work getting a response to the survey, Hitoshi.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Femi
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:28, Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hi folks,
> >> 
> >> I'll be there.
> >> 
> >> I'm sorry I've not contributed to this draft update.
> >> I'm not an operator and have no information privately, but I asked one Japanese operator to give some input based on the questionnaire and got it. I hope it can be a good input.
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> 
> >> Hitoshi
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ===from here===
> >> 
> >> 3.2.  Questionnaire for Network Operators
> >> 
> >>  Name: Takatoshi Ikeda
> >> 
> >>  Affiliation/Organization: APAN-JP
> >> 
> >>  Contact Email: ops@jp.apan.net
> >> 
> >>  Do you wish to keep your name and affiliation confidential?:
> >> 
> >> 3.2.1.  Deployment Status
> >> 
> >>  Which of the following are currently deployed in your network?  And
> >>  for how long has it been deployed?
> >> 
> >>  1.  IGMPv1 [RFC1112] deployed?: N, since:
> >> 
> >>  2.  IGMPv2 [RFC2236] deployed?: Y, since:
> >> 
> >>  3.  IGMPv3 [RFC3376] deployed?: Y, since:
> >> 
> >>  4.  Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790] Implemented: N, since:
> >> 
> >>  5.  MLDv1 [RFC2710] deployed?: Y, since:
> >> 
> >>  6.  MLDv2 [RFC3810] deployed?: Y, since:
> >> 
> >>  7.  Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] deployed?: N, since:
> >> 
> >> 3.2.2.  Deployment Specifics
> >> 
> >>  1.  Which IGMPv3 features are in use?  (Is Exclude mode with source
> >>      list in use?)
> >>       Membership-report for SSM
> >>       No filter function is used.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>  2.  Which MLDv2 features are in use?  (Is Exclude mode with source
> >>      list in use?)
> >>       Membership-report for SSM
> >>       No filter function is used.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>  3.  Does your network rely on the fallback mechanism between
> >>      different IGMP versions?  (Between which IGMP versions?)  (What
> >>      is your experience with this fallback mechanism?)
> >> 
> >>       No
> >> 
> >>  4.  Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor)
> >>      implementations for your deployment?  (Have you encountered any
> >>      inter-operability or backward-compatibility issues amongst
> >>      differing implementations?)  (What are your concerns about these
> >>      issues?)
> >> 
> >>      No
> >> 
> >> 3.2.3.  Deployment Perspectives
> >> 
> >>  1.  What have you found to be the strengths of IGMPv3/MLDv2?
> >>      Specifying Source for Multicast
> >> 
> >>  2.  What have you found to be the weaknesses of IGMPv3/MLDv2?
> >>      None
> >> 
> >>  3.  What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to
> >>      update these documents?
> >> 
> >> ===to here===
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Jul 17, 2019, at 4:59, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> I hope i can go to IETF105 and would be happy to meet. Have not tried to
> >>> work out my schedule, but if i am there, it will be whole week.
> >>> 
> >>> Who else is coming ?
> >>> 
> >>> Cheers
> >>>  Toerless
> >>> 
> >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 07:07:55PM +0000, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> This IETF I would not be able to make it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Mankamana
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> From: Igmp-mld-bis <igmp-mld-bis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
> >>>> Date: Monday, July 15, 2019 at 12:06 PM
> >>>> To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi=40arista.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> >>>> Cc: "igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org" <igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] Meet in Montreal?
> >>>> 
> >>>> I'm available Tuesday morning.
> >>>> 
> >>>> ~Tim
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:01 PM Olufemi Komolafe <femi=40arista.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40arista.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
> >>>> Not sure who is attending IETF 105 in Montreal next week but I was thinking that perhaps those of us attending can fix a time/place to meet up?
> >>>> 
> >>>> It might be an idea to meet on Monday or Tuesday, i.e. before the PIM WG meeting on Thursday, to try to progress and finalise the survey?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Also, there have been some discussions on the thread recently so it???d be good for folks to please take a look and provide any thoughts/feedback?
> >>>> 
> >>>> In my opinion, we should aim to handing over the survey to the WG chairs before the meeting so the focus can shift on to starting the actual mechanics of distributing the survey etc.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Femi
> >>>> 
> >>>> --
> >>>> Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
> >>>> Igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org<mailto:Igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org>
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis
> >>> 
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
> >>>> Igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> ---
> >>> tte@cs.fau.de
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
> >>> Igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
> >> Igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
> Igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis

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