Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.txt> (Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)) to Internet Standard

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

I don't think it's a repudiation. I think that 5796 could
still becomeb a candidate superceeding document to 4601bis.
I just don't think that we need to stall 4601bis for that
decision, and that i would like to see some actual deployment
experience documentation for 5796.

On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 01:11:37PM -0500, William Atwood wrote:
> Stig,
> 
> My 2 cents (again, looking for guidance from Alia) is that not
> referencing 5796 and 6226 amounts to a repudiation of these RFCs,
> essentially saying that PIM-SM is going back to what is said in RFC 4601.
> 
> RFC 5796 and RFC 4601 say opposing things about the use of AH.  If
> 4601bis goes back to (or retains) the language of RFC 4601, then there
> was no point in doing RFC 5796.
> 
> If it is necessary to advance RFC 5796 to Full Standard, I can arrange
> for three independent implementations to be shown to inter-operate.  We
> have done it already with two (Cisco and Xorp).  Adding a third (or a
> fourth) would just be a matter of borrowing a router from one or more
> router manufacturers.
> 
> Otherwise, we do a Last Call on 4601bis citing the explicit downref.
> 
>   Bill
> 
> On 27/02/2015 6:35 PM, Stig Venaas wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > On 2/27/2015 11:10 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> >> Bill,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the good review and catches!
> >> I'd like to see the draft updated before March 5 so that it can still
> >> make the telechat on March 12.
> > 
> > I'm not sure it is appropriate to update the document referencing those
> > more recent standards track document though. We are progressing 4601bis
> > on the standards track here. Should we as part of that have references
> > to less mature documents? Those other documents are updating 4601 I
> > believe which is fine. But that doesn't necessarily mean that 4601bis
> > should reference them.
> > 
> > Looking for guidance here Alia. My thinking is that 4601bis shouldn't
> > change anything from 4601, only leave certain things out.
> > 
> > Stig
> > 
> >> Regards,
> >> Alia
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:04 PM, William Atwood
> >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     In the following, I will refer to draft-ietf-pim-4601bis as simply
> >>     "4601bis".
> >>
> >>     RFC 4601 has been updated by several RFCs:
> >>
> >>     RFC 5059 Bootstrap Router (BSR) Mechanism for Protocol
> >>               Independent Multicast (PIM)
> >>     RFC 5796 Authentication and Confidentiality in Protocol
> >>               Independent Multicast Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
> >>               Link-Local Messages
> >>     RFC 6226 PIM Group-to-Rendezvous-Point Mapping
> >>
> >>     4601bis refers to RFC 5059 in Section 3.7.  The new text is
> >> identical to
> >>     the text in RFC 4601, although the reference in RFC 4601 is to the
> >>     Internet Draft that became RFC 5059.
> >>
> >>     4601bis makes no reference to RFC 5796.  Given that RFC 5796
> >> alters the
> >>     preferred IPsec solution (AH is "recommended" in RFC 4601, while RFC
> >>     5796 says that implementations "MUST support ESP and MAY support
> >> AH"),
> >>     and given that RFC 5796 provides considerable detail on the use of
> >> IPsec
> >>     to protect link-local messages for PIM-SM, RFC 5796 should be
> >>     specifically referenced in Section 6.3 of 4601bis.
> >>
> >>     4601bis makes no reference to RFC 6226.  Given that RFC 6226
> >> alters the
> >>     algorithm for determining the Rendezvous Point, RFC 6226 should be
> >>     specifically mentioned in Section 3.7 of 4601bis.  The authors should
> >>     also consider whether to eliminate Section 4.7.1 and replace it
> >> with a
> >>     pointer to RFC 6226, to reduce it and add a pointer to RFC 6226,
> >> or to
> >>     leave it unchanged.
> >>
> >>     Suggested text for some of these changes has been supplied to the
> >>     authors of 4601bis.
> >>
> >>        Bill Atwood
> >>
> >>
> >>     On 13/02/2015 12:42 PM, The IESG wrote:
> >>      >
> >>      > The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent
> >>     Multicast
> >>      > WG (pim) to consider the following document:
> >>      > - 'Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
> >>      >    Specification (Revised)'
> >>      >   <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.txt> as Internet Standard
> >>      >
> >>      > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> >> solicits
> >>      > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments
> >>     to the
> >>      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> mailing lists by 2015-02-27.
> >>     Exceptionally, comments may be
> >>      > sent to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> instead. In either
> >>     case, please retain the
> >>      > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >>      >
> >>      > Abstract
> >>      >
> >>      >
> >>      >    This document specifies Protocol Independent Multicast -
> >>     Sparse Mode
> >>      >    (PIM-SM).  PIM-SM is a multicast routing protocol that can
> >> use the
> >>      >    underlying unicast routing information base or a separate
> >>     multicast-
> >>      >    capable routing information base.  It builds unidirectional
> >> shared
> >>      >    trees rooted at a Rendezvous Point (RP) per group, and
> >> optionally
> >>      >    creates shortest-path trees per source.
> >>      >
> >>      >    This document addresses errata filed against RFC 4601, and
> >> removes
> >>      >    the optional (*,*,RP) feature that lacks sufficient deployment
> >>      >    experience.
> >>      >
> >>      >
> >>      >
> >>      >
> >>      > The file can be obtained via
> >>      > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis/
> >>      >
> >>      > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> >>      > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis/ballot/
> >>      >
> >>      >
> >>      > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >>      >
> >>      >
> >>
> >>     --
> >>     Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel: [phone] x3046
> >>     <tel:%2B1%20%28514%29%20848-2424%20x3046>
> >>     Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax: [phone]
> >>     <tel:%2B1%20%28514%29%20848-2830>
> >>     Department of Computer Science
> >>         and Software Engineering
> >>     Concordia University EV 3.185 email:[e-mail]
> >>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>     1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
> >>     Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8
> >>
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     pim mailing list
> >>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pim mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> >>
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel:   [phone] x3046
> Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   [phone]
> Department of Computer Science
>    and Software Engineering
> Concordia University EV 3.185     email:[e-mail]
> 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West    http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
> Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [e-mail]