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

[William Atwood <[e-mail]>]

Alia,

Please see inline.

  Bill

On 02/03/2015 5:26 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Hi Stig,
> 
> Sorry for the delay in responding.  I was getting advice :-)
> 
> If A obsoletes B and C updates B, then other than rolling C into A, there is

<bill> What is required to "roll C into A"?  Does this mean to copy the
text of C into A?  Or something else?  I may be dense, but as I see it,
either I put the text of C into A, or at least I change the text of A to
point to C.
</bill>

> nothing to do for A.  That C updates A should be automatic inheritance.

<bill>
I am sorry, but I don't get it.  Here is my specific issue:

RFC 4601 specified that AH is "recommended".

RFC 5796 (on the advice of the Security folks) requires ESP and permits AH.

4601bis (version -04) retains the language of RFC 4601, i.e., it
_recommends_ AH.

Suppose that I were an implementer, told to implement 4601bis (i.e.,
whatever RFC 4601bis becomes).  Since (I believe) a reasonable
assumption is that 4601bis, as a "Full Standard", provides the latest
information, why would I (as an implementer) go back and look at "old"
documentation???  Surely we need to take note of the change in
recommendations when formulating the new document.  In this case, the
changes that I suggested off-list alter the language of the
recommendation in 4601bis, and point to RFC 5796 for the details.
</bill>

> 
> Regards,
> Alia
> 
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Stig Venaas <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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]>
>         <mailto:william.atwood@__concordia.ca
>         <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]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> mailing lists by
>         2015-02-27.
>             Exceptionally, comments may be
>              > sent to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[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/
>         <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/
>         <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>
>             <tel:%2B1%20%28514%29%20848-__2424%20x3046>
>             Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax: [phone]
>         <tel:%2B1%20%28514%29%20848-2830>
>             <tel:%2B1%20%28514%29%20848-__2830>
>             Department of Computer Science
>                 and Software Engineering
>             Concordia University EV 3.185
>         email:william.atwood@__concordia.ca
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West
>         http://users.encs.concordia.__ca/~bill
>         <http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill>
>             Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8
> 
>             _________________________________________________
>             pim mailing list
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/pim
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>         _________________________________________________
>         pim mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/pim
>         <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