[pim] Volunteers needed for work on progressing IGMP/MLD on the standards track

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Tue, 20 November 2018 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <stig@venaas.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 81A78130DCC for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:58:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 scJ5NgHqgy_u for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48DEC12785F for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id b3so3151469ede.1 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:58:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PMvbeBfxEi6n66GKxS3Rzo6OqD29juaZ4XHBP1aKGeY=; b=s6ad516ZRIEyaQh7sLyOcvkK2uBheDVAUvrg5we8K3N6WTGZ06IAw5WKvM8Itvh7xk VZzr6mtxFbzSf9nTQ7tsOtBsq9rzfkFtv+29CRgz6D0pWbcuqMFYwAFx5Ly2iS9PScjO e25Cmf1yMC1xfyyDrDInITepUgSVM657C0j3CvZwtqVb8P+VgzQKA6Ehot4AJixMiSV3 KVxaynI4lzdqD36ukGsIbO9E8blgt2OS7dP8UO3hMhYs+xL/w3a82GSA7oo8OuCL+kJ9 drdPvSpRR3cgUl5FwkQoDj+CDl6O73jIdOkA28mKIAI0OwnLZYbzcb8OilpctbeciAvl 2MhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PMvbeBfxEi6n66GKxS3Rzo6OqD29juaZ4XHBP1aKGeY=; b=UOz1PG4g49/t6TJLXCCwOlrYf+vkuYE7ZmVQ+2pOnUYPqFUFB6vAuOe5RR0E6PpD4J wdTteZOfKaAujgjkQAzPc1EsPeD+Ne4iKZkr/sXx/XqHIommBh5UsUA4lXivmafcrPzH tsYTM7THV1n2h2exMXzH35QqN9bCXt+6VMJeYkjwZtPcsJhV/ILpz8rDEZniVMQO4O4Z Ujetbir1GGBWEFhB8snrlFAp3C11NPYqbfaiVkOze9+7CFxf5oZgux8/dhsJwe4cu+N5 Bao/eTWJ1tn96I7XAjCk1FdPgtnFgWxrmLi7SKTjy/CPTW/vpBMTu7sQt8AvOhdnRhHc vOWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKNPUMbY3Fj353TNAnZ3e/13sx8T35TS2YQIKn7l3/qta6laGmV v7RsH5E6XJ9fArp6uU5pUZeNSS/vnGxqfc3NgKGbOyf4Odk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5c39vGnwG6M2mJoI4uz9vMRYXp98unFaN33QxZgKYP3FRj8S1F0C7vz7+jU6a2ScudBYVyfOqWZnmxNxVAIXMI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1dd1:: with SMTP id v17-v6mr3101982ejh.148.1542747521239; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:58:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:58:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHANBt+AJLxCpzWgF_x0UQAp_1BWMewPjkN_u51xzMPP8WA2oA@mail.gmail.com>
To: pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/F5y_w6jnrtzBpEiC7F_TxBv9PXI>
Subject: [pim] Volunteers needed for work on progressing IGMP/MLD on the standards track
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:58:46 -0000

Hi

Currently IGMPv3 and MLDv2 are Proposed Standard, and we have good
support in the working group for progressing them to Internet
Standard. This is similar to the work that was done for PIM-SM (RFC
4601) a few years back. In order to do this, we should try to
determine if there are parts of RFC 3376 and RFC 3810 that have not
been widely implemented, and also if people have found any
interoperability issues. For PIM-SM we had a team of volunteers that
created separate surveys for vendors and operators. These surveys were
then distributed as widely as possible, and we had someone receive the
reports by email and anonymizing them. The volunteer team then wrote
RFC 7063 based on their findings. The team also then worked on
revising RFC 4601, using these findings as input, and published PIM-SM
as Internet Standard (RFC 7761). Please see RFC 7063 for more details
on the methodology, and also the exact surveys that were created.

In order to progress IGMP/MLD I think we should follow the same
procedure, but there could be other options. If you believe we should
do it differently, please respond to this thread.

We need a team of volunteers that can lead this work. It would be best
if we have a wide representation from vendors plus people from
operators or others that have deployment experience. If we agree on
following the same procedure, the first step would be to create the
surveys. It would be best that a draft gets published with the
proposed surveys, and we can then discuss the proposal in the working
group, and have the draft revised accordingly. Once the working group
is happy with the proposed surveys we can then conduct the survey. I'm
also hoping that the same volunteer team can afterwards work on
revising the RFCs.

If you are interested in volunteering, please let us know. Also, any
comments on the process would be welcome.

Regards,
Stig