[pim] Re: 2 Week WG LC on draft-ietf-pim-light

["Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi All

Version 3 is uploaded with some minor changes. The biggest change is chapter 3.6 with pim variants not supported.

Thanks
Hooman

-----Original Message-----
From: Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) <hooman.bidgoli=[e-mail]> 
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 6:35 PM
To: Stevens, Jim A Collins <James.A.Stevens=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [pim] Re: 2 Week WG LC on draft-ietf-pim-light

Hi Jim

This draft will not apply to BIDIR-PIM I will make a new section for PIM variants that are not supported

Yes it does apply to PIM-SSM.

My thought is that if we include a section that excludes PIM variant would fix both of your comments

Thanks
Hooman 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stevens, Jim A Collins <James.A.Stevens=[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 2:57 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [pim] FW: 2 Week WG LC on draft-ietf-pim-light

[You don't often get email from james.a.stevens=[e-mail]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.



Resending email since I never saw earlier message posted to PIM email

-----Original Message-----
From: Stevens, Jim A Collins
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 8:09 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: 2 Week WG LC on draft-ietf-pim-light

> Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 09:32:02 +0800 (CST)
> From: <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [pim] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ietf-pim-light Today begins a 
> two-week wglc for 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iet
> f-pim-
> light/__;!!MvWE!G4vZgLsswLoF-
> sfPh5pH5sa6k9kMY4flvHdSsSJDMMWk5wblu3Sy8EWW8BlrDBy1yc6Sxt907Aomg
> z8Ypl2FO_unTFA2BGj7$ .
> I'm chairing this draft because both Stig and Mike are authors.
> In Brisbane we had 9 in favor and 0 against progressing this draft.
> Please let the wg know if you think its ready to progress.

Does this draft RFC apply to BIDIR-PIM (RFC 5015) also or just PIM-SM (RFC 7761)?
If it does apply to BIDIR-PIM, then it needs to describe how PIM-light works with BIDIR-PIM with Designated Forwarder (DF) instead of Designated Router (DR).
If it does not apply to BIDR-PIM, then the title ought to be PIM-SM Light and the introduction should mention that this does not apply to BIDIR-PIM.

I presume that this draft RFC also applies to PIM-SSM since it is a subset of PIM-PM (RFC 7761).  It might be useful to state that this applies to PIM-SSM as well,

Jim
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] _______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]