IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] Alvaro/PIM: Policy for standards rev selection (IGMP / MLD)

"Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis@cisco.com> Sat, 28 July 2018 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mankamis@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F235130DF5 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 jr0rK35--rK4 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD8D2130DCD for <pim@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2232; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1532813467; x=1534023067; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=0eTRo0RA9S5cE+V0i8oO+iwitNdlDmUDeaancxMR7K8=; b=hjm1Y9Bu+0uNciU5N28V4QQC5CfIxuYJMXGTvExzT9+xOSrjC7Jd8NwU R3FjX2sYr37Cf6lJmmBfLzYRheCILs+aktVu0CITWLls45oVb24nPMh1X hsa+zmgHhPY46t0fUzqxa6UH8qu5yTXnmT0TXt4nNWBKmZN5RKxxy8Hmj g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C8AQB+31xb/4wNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNOY38oCpg1gg2VUYF6CxgLgXWCVAKCeyE2FgECAQECAQECbRwMhTYBAQEBAgEBATg0CwULAgEIGB4QJwslAgQBDQWDIAGBdwgPq0iKQgWJAheBQT+BEicfgkyDGwEBgWGDMoIkApoQCQKPNY4JkhACERSBJCQBMIFScBU7KgGCPosVhT5vjhiBGwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,415,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="427194871"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Jul 2018 21:31:06 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w6SLV6rH032580 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:31:06 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 16:31:05 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 16:31:05 -0500
From: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis@cisco.com>
To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Leonard A Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>, Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@ieee.org>
CC: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pim] Alvaro/PIM: Policy for standards rev selection (IGMP / MLD)
Thread-Index: AQHT/aL7yXfhu+sYEUKBrIIcSy7eIaRVaPSAgFBkKgA=
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:31:05 +0000
Message-ID: <58CB3545-33EB-482E-8E3E-069D99F0EEC4@cisco.com>
References: <20180606143024.zqsrxu3qc5d4d4vt@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAHANBtKqd1uYse6+LSKka7z7m+LJ_rcKdyAN=WQiyomhpPk5aw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHANBtKqd1uYse6+LSKka7z7m+LJ_rcKdyAN=WQiyomhpPk5aw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.82.194]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6BAC5879A3E15645A8BF3CCB2970DCA2@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.20, xch-aln-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/0XojY46sWrMeehYUkoyHyHRLIcQ>
Subject: Re: [pim] Alvaro/PIM: Policy for standards rev selection (IGMP / MLD)
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:31:10 -0000

Hi Every one, 
What is the final call to move IGMPv3 towards standard track.  As discussed during last IETF 

  * Lightweight IGMP V3 is standard track document and it excludes the option of source list with Exclude mode. 

So question would be , 

* Should we have single document which would include some more detail in lightweight IGMP V3 and create standard track document ? 
* New Document MUST inherit all state machine from existing IGMP V3 document. 


Mankamana 

> On Jun 7, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> It would be a great idea to deprecate IGMPv2/MLDv1.
> 
> Perhaps it is also time to start working on progressing IGMPv3/MLDv2
> to Internet Standard?
> 
> Stig
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
>> IETF process / current practices question
>> 
>> So, i was writing some 'MUST use MLDv2 (RFC3810)' into some draft (ACP),
>> and was challenged if MLDv1 was not also working. And in this case it was
>> for an ASM (link-local discovery case). Obviously, i would never want
>> to write that MLDv1 is sufficient unless being waterboarded. So i wonder:
>> 
>> Given how IGMPv2/MLDv3 are just "updating" IGMPv2/MLDv1, and both the
>> old and new specs are PROPOSED STANDARD, could someone rightfully
>> argue that a spec for an app using ASM (as in this case) should really
>> only require the oldest working protocol of the highest standards
>> level ? Or if not, are there any rules how to decide what to require ?
>> "WG choice" ?
>> 
>> Could we / should we (we = PIM WG) try to get IGMPv1/IGMPv2 and MLDv1 obsoleted
>> to eliminate this type of discussion and ensure IGMPv3/MLDv2 will be required ?
>> Whats the process / requirements to get protocols like these obsoleted ?
>> Why should we / could we not do it ? ;-)
>> 
>> Cheers
>>    Toerless
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pim mailing list
>> pim@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email