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 <eckert@cisco.com> Wed, 11 March 2015 17:03 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4511A0181 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 wVhTHRuqOIJr for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E5AD1A001B for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9082; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1426093415; x=1427303015; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=VFW8c2AceU4giPyx/J1DgPE1U6pjMCsNYrZGg/wJV5s=; b=boI4lwudJEo22IPcmqxPh7LHG9wixi83X7R2lR3YLP+sqn4KRaG/AjUb DYOG/hr1JIDYEIIkqr0RAcDQUwUpnV96i9opgEXwbKKJWc2xUO9qJKP73 CMRFVj8mZHBURVaVOaWoqPfeHr7F64pgaOL7LHJ+YhhtkRDzUt5l3ypwU 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ArBQBodABV/4YNJK1ZAxaCcFJaw1YKhXACgThNAQEBAQEBfIQPAQEBAwEBAQEkEywIBgUFCwsOCgkaCw8FEzYTG4gMCA3IYQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLF4QMEQFAEAcRgwaBFgWKcokRhXQBgRo5gm+CVIYChl8jggIcFIFcHjEBgQqBOAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,382,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="131054877"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2015 17:03:34 +0000
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2BH3Xlh024381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:03:34 GMT
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t2BH3Wik016369; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:03:32 -0700
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id t2BH3W6O016368; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:03:32 -0700
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:03:32 -0700
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150311170332.GE874@cisco.com>
References: <20150213174210.6909.43630.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F0BFB1.4090707@concordia.ca> <CAG4d1reOc4Wzkyqmg3YF_VXhUfWumVuSr3gTU8zAog9NC12sNg@mail.gmail.com> <20150311134617.GB874@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rfKE6xSHsJyw9xNf38f0Q+sz5J=pE-Fse-Toj7p9rgq2g@mail.gmail.com> <20150311145348.GD874@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rds32stf7iKpDijfiq-hnaC8Jks+HvO704YW1XdgOb9UA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rds32stf7iKpDijfiq-hnaC8Jks+HvO704YW1XdgOb9UA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/UGa6BAMmTAjrXjxGeL0nQpBaMqM>
Cc: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.txt> (Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)) to Internet Standard
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:03:38 -0000
Alia, as said, it doesn't make sense to raise this requirement against an RFC if i am the only one interested in it. Cheers Toerless On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:59:31AM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > Toerless, > > If you ran into the same issue for 2362/4601, why didn't you raise it while > the > WG was working on this draft or in the last 6 months since WGLC? > > Can you write up a meaningful summary other than "clarifying the required > behavior"? > > I'm sure that those discussing this with their customers can translate as > and if > necessary. > > Regards, > Alia > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> wrote: > > > Thanks, Alia > > > > No offense, but i think this is hilarious. The most hilarious part is > > that nobody beside me seems to care about a good summary. Especially > > because that summary (list of collected errata) was the starting point ofr > > the new RFC, aka: it did exist. But i will be happy to tell customers whom > > i am presenting IP multicast to the recommended IETF process: > > > > -> There is a new version of PIM > > -> To understand what it improves and/or under what circumstances > > there may be incompatibilities with older implementations > > or improvements you want: > > > > - Go to https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff > > - Aquire rfc4601 and rfc4601bis files > > - create a diff > > - read throught he diff and understad what it means. > > > > I am sure customers will appreciate the geek factor of the IETF process. > > > > Btw: i ran through that process between 2362/4601 when we got bugged > > by our products and customer RFPs about claims re. 4601... > > > > Cheer > > Toerless > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:24:20AM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > > > Toerless, > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Alia: > > > > > > > > How would an implementer of PIM based on 4601 figure out from 4601bis, > > > > what if any changes she would need to do on her implementation ? > > > > > > > > > > It is not very hard to compare 4601 and 4601bis with the rfcdiff tool to > > > see the > > > differences. > > > > > > > > > > I may be missing something, but by not having an errata/changes > > section/ > > > > summary, existing implementers will ahve a lot more trouble adopting > > > > this update than they should IMHO. Is that normal IETF process in bis > > > > documents ? > > > > > > > > > > So - I have three responses. First, this type of feedback would be quite > > > useful during WGLC. It isn't, I think, a reason to impact the draft at > > this > > > stage,even if the draft comes back to the WG to handle issues around the > > > updates and section 6.3. Second, looking with rfcdiff shows some changes > > > from "should to SHOULD or must to MUST"; I don't really see a way of > > > summarizing it cleanly. Third, the major changes to a bis version are > > > summarized; > > > I haven't seen a lot of bis drafts progressed yet but the short summary > > > that > > > is there about the removed functionality seems useful. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Alia > > > > > > The "removed functionality" is the least interesting bit of changes, > > > > so that does not count. > > > > > > > > Toerless > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 02:10:25PM -0500, 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. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Alia > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:04 PM, William Atwood < > > > > william.atwood@concordia.ca > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-02-27. Exceptionally, > > comments > > > > may > > > > > > be > > > > > > > sent to iesg@ietf.org 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: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046 > > > > > > Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830 > > > > > > Department of Computer Science > > > > > > and Software Engineering > > > > > > Concordia University EV 3.185 > > email:william.atwood@concordia.ca > > > > > > 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West > > http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill > > > > > > Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --- > > > > Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com > > > > > > > > -- > > --- > > Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com > > -- --- Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Stig Venaas
- [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.tx… The IESG
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… William Atwood
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Alia Atlas
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Stig Venaas
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… William Atwood
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Alia Atlas
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Rishabh Parekh
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Alia Atlas
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… William Atwood
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Alia Atlas
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Alia Atlas
- Re: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-0… Toerless Eckert