IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Fri, 29 May 2015 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@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 C09811A900A for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 9SYKmoC09RoB for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C4E31A901C for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3443; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1432907881; x=1434117481; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=aZPapAyAlvaFnwgkungWgzyYvrHjb6oZmWwGysaUN5s=; b=gWjnLIN9kWCst4FKRG1S4LV5VL7luzMvY6B2WgB9cu9+86j8XiXUC5BZ J7dkMpS0Jk6m9gvaq8aOk8ooqpgKwO42FoP2UWfXb+WwHb78HXZWxSh/N 3FsUHee/A+RZMYdaaLPRV/CcOh+hi5HPSJkt5kR7+LeRd0DbD9w60zyuE M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ALBQBGb2hV/4ENJK1cgkVLVF4Gv36FdYFHTAEBAQEBAYELhCUEeRIBDHQnBAENDogkDdR9AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF493AQFMBIQ0BZBOgjyENYZdlzIjg3hvAYELOoEBAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,517,1427760000"; d="scan'208,217";a="423656402"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 May 2015 13:58:00 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4TDvxT0030371 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 29 May 2015 13:57:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.46]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:57:59 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: "draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking@tools.ietf.org>, "pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking
Thread-Index: AQHQmhd4y+EuyhjcgE2sBaMms8p+pw==
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:57:59 +0000
Message-ID: <D16BA36C.AE2F1%aretana@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D16BA36CAE2F1aretanaciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/_QBENf1h1tYfmeBFAjUFRtkL9CY>
Cc: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Subject: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking
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: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:58:02 -0000

Hi!

I started looking at this document, and being that it has already been to the IESG, it worries me that not much seems to have changed to address the concerns from the initial visit [1].  At the time there were 3 Abstains basically saying that there is really nothing here to standardize.   How are we addressing those concerns?

After some discussions on the pim list about whether this case was similar to others, etc. I stumbled over a proposed e-mail to the IESG to talk about the path forward [2], but I can’t find traces of it being sent or a reply discussed anywhere.  Was there a discussion with the IESG on the way forward?  What were the results?

Other obvious questions:  Has a different status (Informational, maybe) been considered?  If so, why didn’t the WG reach consensus on that?

I’ll take a closer look at the text when I get a warmer feeling that the original concerns in the IESG have been addressed.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking/ballot/
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/current/msg02883.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email