Re: [pim] pim Digest, Vol 210, Issue 3- regarding draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-10
saeed sami <sami.biz.email@gmail.com> Tue, 05 October 2021 17:22 UTC
Return-Path: <sami.biz.email@gmail.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 A0BF73A0E62 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_MIME_MALF=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 qffo0gc1ssAU for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32f.google.com (mail-ot1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (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 3230E3A0E61 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id g62-20020a9d2dc4000000b0054752cfbc59so26820427otb.1 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=BHNws2eHLWamfxfDqLS0Zodj7QBWOCvjybDS2AaZfsY=; b=nBdNMOOqA3ztswHaNMTaxFTziWBfrZ8GGtW+XjK9pKXxt8yROjZB8HB5QEWYWkonm4 4Nu9c8xcFM7Us3Q1fCv7yEFlwE2WuDuipKTOcpZqUkm7Ga3kiAUVdzdmhegsswh0e/j2 JU66J05AelR+Fvku21mKy36NTML1TEltXAKH1YF2sMtjbXj6svqdhy6kQbEhUBpF+fIP gw8zX5H6tEXsiQKJkh7hx0pjaf0vGd7YfmS9cH0RfGrGPfg9mrq1vRwCdawJAiH8uBgS 8aFtc4RtLBqefiNSaoqokyo+e8Wo4wQ9DxgDDHda755qAeWpVTVRpKKioxojJyZ/9w17 6U8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=BHNws2eHLWamfxfDqLS0Zodj7QBWOCvjybDS2AaZfsY=; b=WKsCzq9aD4RhHPYG+kt/U98m/7tv9F5b1/fkOFt67UOZgSDebjlKLbUcMm3Yb6/Jvy 3DFsgeVZgar2kN/ewXpwNpnlCycIXCbMTYlAEA9iq0GEKC4yEDvHKHH+lc1DBit3wHNT +erxOvFrgHA+d9iEN5Id94SgsLwDIzFJ85LTgcaxbV07qPDDHmyMiNqPEAFxzhRbE42T JlInr6vvoBsCrO/b6OQdeASOTMWsxCPtaMfuae8Z/U24UvZxdxzaONunGl3qGVMC0kiJ 4QmUHq9WsrZW8OSXRZFA8cgEZhhzkIrxsrfXoydjf1RWVz9ruV6Lnov03i3ufhftS5+O 8RdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532shJdUwaydZVQdX6c8dS7Y3eaHbLYyhUTnajPFV+ejirIWr93R IRXCRIA4QZYlH6V12lqlogz6/LrebvruqxQOJug63G50SwipSw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPlle586phWReR9w73wnt6/8E98yFUe/v2JIp13v8W7hrzIzye/ntUviXGK/wdad4AIR5sumhlSh4NKWDTcRQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:44d:: with SMTP id 71mr15133348otc.331.1633454559888; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 10:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.7072.1633448268.29995.pim@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.7072.1633448268.29995.pim@ietf.org>
From: saeed sami <sami.biz.email@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 20:52:27 +0330
Message-ID: <CAJeqxZmW6VfCehCVE3cF9Zzq4yb0tYt497U6vUmRPGV2UpB0sA@mail.gmail.com>
To: pim <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc89d905cd9e4622"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Yg0Q7eGerlB3Qq613vdWesBX0-g>
Subject: Re: [pim] pim Digest, Vol 210, Issue 3- regarding draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-10
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, 05 Oct 2021 17:22:52 -0000
Hello. Isn't the Idea proposed in this draft regarding PIM NULL-Register packing the same idea proposed in Draft-sami-pim-ng? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sami-pim-ng-14 Sincerely sami On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 7:08 PM <pim-request@ietf.org> wrote: > Send pim mailing list submissions to > pim@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > pim-request@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > pim-owner@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of pim digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Rtgdir early review of > draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-10 (Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker) > 2. Re: Yangdoctors last call review of > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-19 (Hongji Zhao) > 3. Re: Rtgdir early review of > draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-10 (Ananya Gopal (ananygop)) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 19:45:54 -0700 > From: Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> > To: <rtg-dir@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing.all@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org > Subject: [pim] Rtgdir early review of > draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-10 > Message-ID: <163340195394.25879.4844991617031244413@ietfa.amsl.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu > Review result: Has Nits > > Hello > > I have been selected to do a routing directorate ?early? review of this > draft. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing/ > > The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, > perform > an ?early? review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the > IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft?s > lifetime > as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the > stage that the document has reached. > > As this document has gone through two working group last calls, my focus > for > the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. > Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call > comments. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > ?http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Document: draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing > Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu > Review Date: 10/04/2021 > Intended Status: standards track > > Summary: > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should > be > considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. > > Comments: > > The IESG state of this draft is ?Dead?. This might be a system error, but > should be fixed. > > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3446 > > The line numbers are from idnits output. > Question: > 251 * When a Register-Stop message with the P-bit set is received, > 252 the DR MAY send PIM Packed Null-Register messages (Section 3) > 253 to the RP instead of multiple Register messages with the > N-bit > 254 set ([[RFC7761]]). > > 256 * The RP, after receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message > MAY > 257 start sending PIM Packed Register-Stop messages (Section 4) > to > 258 the corresponding DR instead of individual Register-Stop > 259 messages. > Why is "MAY" used here instead of "SHOULD"? > > Section 6 > 288 the router should not advertise the capability. However, an > 289 implementation MAY choose to still parse any packed registers if > they > 290 are received. > For this case, which format of register-stop message the RP should send? > > Section 8: > For this case, it is suggested that the DR can send an unpacked PIM > Null-Register. How can the DR know that the packed Null-Register message > is not lost? > > Nits: > > * Warning from idnits because reference to RFC 8174 is missing. > == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even > if > it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph > with > a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? > > RFC 8174, paragraph 11: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", > and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they > appear in all capitals, as shown here. > > ... text found in draft: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", > and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] when, and only when, they appear in > ......................................^ > all capitals, as shown here. > > * There are several places in the draft that an extra "[]" is used. For > example: > 298 MSDP [[RFC3446]] as well. > s/[[RFC3446]]/[RFC3446] > Please fix them all. > > 25 This document defines a standard to send multiple multicast source > 26 and group information in a single PIM Null-Register message, in a > 27 packed format. We will refer to this packed format as the PIM > Packed > 28 Null-Register format throughout the document. > "in a single PIM Null-Register message, in a packed format." This is a bit > confusing, as it should be a new message called "the PIM Packed > Null-Register". > > 28 Null-Register format throughout the document. This document also > 29 discusses the interoperability between the PIM routers which do not > 30 understand the packed message format with multiple multicast source > 31 and group details. > It should be interoperability between the PIM routers which do not > understand > the packet message format and routers which do understand it. > > For section 5, case 2 and 3, it should be added that after receiving > DR's PIM Null-Register message, it sends Register-Stop message. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:58:16 +0000 > From: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com> > To: Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" > <yang-doctors@ietf.org> > Cc: "draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang.all@ietf.org" > <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang.all@ietf.org>, > "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" > <pim@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-19 > Message-ID: > < > DB6PR07MB443835B0E31A438B9C36E5D196AF9@DB6PR07MB4438.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Reshad, > > Please check inline. Thanks a lot. > > BR/Hongji > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Reshad Rahman via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> > Sent: 2021?9?30? 11:09 > To: yang-doctors@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org; > pim@ietf.org > Subject: Yangdoctors last call review of > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-19 > > Reviewer: Reshad Rahman > Review result: Ready with Nits > > This is my 3rd review of the document. While I have focused on changes > done since my last review, some comments apply to parts of the YANG model > which hasn't changed recently. > > Main comments > ============= > > - Feature immediate-leave mentions ?fast leave? in the description. > RFC3376 mentions fast leave but not immediate leave. Should the feature, > and the leaf node which depends on it, be renamed to fast-leave? > [Authors] Accepted > > - Leaf send-query, description says that it cooperates with parameter > querier-source. I believe there should be enforcement that send-query can > only be set if querier-source is also set (must statement)? Also > querier-source in IGMP mentions VLAN, no such mention in MLD, is that > correct? > [Authors] The description of leaf send-query is not clear and easily > causes confusion. It will be updated. > The description of querier-source in both IGMP and MLD > part are not proper, and will be updated. > > Questions > ======== > > - Feature static-l2-multicast-group. The description mentions L2 multicast > static-group. Is it a static multicast group or a multicast static group? I > believe it?s the former and the description should be changed? > [Authors] It is static multicast group, and the description will be > updated. > > - igmp-version and mld-version are both uint8 with a range (1..3 and > 1..2). If we get a new version someday, the range will have to be changed. > I don?t recall if this was brought up before. Another option is to use an > identity. I realize we don?t spin out a new version frequently so this may > not be an issue. And probably with a new version other changes would be > needed anyway? > [Authors] Your last statement is what we considered. When new protocol > version is introduced, we need a lot of changes. > > - Last-reporter is present under the group and also under each source > entry. Is the one under the group the last host from all sources? > [Authors] Yes > > - Leaf node require-router-alert. What happens if it?s set to true and the > IP hdr does not contain RA? Consider updating description and/or adding a > reference. > [Authors] In that case, the report messages will be ignored. We will > adding a reference. > > Minor > ===== > > - Typo in bridge-router-interface: dynamicly. > [Authors] Accepted > > - No need to mention the leaf name in description, e.g. in l2-service-type > [Authors] Accepted > > - Leaf ?host-address?, rename to ?address? since the list is called host > (no need to duplicate host). > [Authors] Accepted > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:37:37 +0000 > From: "Ananya Gopal (ananygop)" <ananygop@cisco.com> > To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" > <rtg-dir@ietf.org> > Cc: "draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing.all@ietf.org" > <draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing.all@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org > " > <pim@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [pim] Rtgdir early review of > draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-10 > Message-ID: > < > PH0PR11MB52055F8FE647294400432519C1AF9@PH0PR11MB5205.namprd11.prod.outlook.com > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Yingzhen Qu, > > Thanks for the detailed review, I will fix these and update the draft. > > Thanks, > Ananya > > > From: Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> > Date: Monday, October 4, 2021 at 7:46 PM > To: rtg-dir@ietf.org <rtg-dir@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing.all@ietf.org < > draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing.all@ietf.org>, pim@ietf.org < > pim@ietf.org> > Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-10 > Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu > Review result: Has Nits > > Hello > > I have been selected to do a routing directorate ?early? review of this > draft. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing/ > > The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, > perform > an ?early? review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the > IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft?s > lifetime > as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the > stage that the document has reached. > > As this document has gone through two working group last calls, my focus > for > the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. > Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call > comments. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > ?http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Document: draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing > Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu > Review Date: 10/04/2021 > Intended Status: standards track > > Summary: > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should > be > considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. > > Comments: > > The IESG state of this draft is ?Dead?. This might be a system error, but > should be fixed. > > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3446 > > The line numbers are from idnits output. > Question: > 251 * When a Register-Stop message with the P-bit set is received, > 252 the DR MAY send PIM Packed Null-Register messages (Section 3) > 253 to the RP instead of multiple Register messages with the > N-bit > 254 set ([[RFC7761]]). > > 256 * The RP, after receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message > MAY > 257 start sending PIM Packed Register-Stop messages (Section 4) > to > 258 the corresponding DR instead of individual Register-Stop > 259 messages. > Why is "MAY" used here instead of "SHOULD"? > > Section 6 > 288 the router should not advertise the capability. However, an > 289 implementation MAY choose to still parse any packed registers if > they > 290 are received. > For this case, which format of register-stop message the RP should send? > > Section 8: > For this case, it is suggested that the DR can send an unpacked PIM > Null-Register. How can the DR know that the packed Null-Register message > is not lost? > > Nits: > > * Warning from idnits because reference to RFC 8174 is missing. > == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even > if > it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph > with > a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? > > RFC 8174, paragraph 11: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", > and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they > appear in all capitals, as shown here. > > ... text found in draft: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", > and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] when, and only when, they appear in > ......................................^ > all capitals, as shown here. > > * There are several places in the draft that an extra "[]" is used. For > example: > 298 MSDP [[RFC3446]] as well. > s/[[RFC3446]]/[RFC3446] > Please fix them all. > > 25 This document defines a standard to send multiple multicast source > 26 and group information in a single PIM Null-Register message, in a > 27 packed format. We will refer to this packed format as the PIM > Packed > 28 Null-Register format throughout the document. > "in a single PIM Null-Register message, in a packed format." This is a bit > confusing, as it should be a new message called "the PIM Packed > Null-Register". > > 28 Null-Register format throughout the document. This document also > 29 discusses the interoperability between the PIM routers which do not > 30 understand the packed message format with multiple multicast source > 31 and group details. > It should be interoperability between the PIM routers which do not > understand > the packet message format and routers which do understand it. > > For section 5, case 2 and 3, it should be added that after receiving > DR's PIM Null-Register message, it sends Register-Stop message. > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/attachments/20211005/8e100af7/attachment.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > > > ------------------------------ > > End of pim Digest, Vol 210, Issue 3 > *********************************** > -- sincerely Saeed Sami