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