[pim] IGMP/MLD survey results and the way forward
Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Mon, 08 February 2021 22:11 UTC
Return-Path: <stig@venaas.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 84A813A1669 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:11:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 aH7ixO_aOqj8 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:11:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (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 2D8E33A165D for <pim@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:11:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id m20so14277303ilj.13 for <pim@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:11:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=oUFXJBtD8IYp41s4E609Wpn9kwYJWtauMTnYpNnqhO4=; b=Wj+ezxYgDCdhwL3cfkDk5lCX/RkOUnDZpwB6c5nDE1uiPaaVwGdEtChbqhtX0iOUAC GELtHGY3zF19WYbibnOxC42micirdenB6d1Z5p0KEbhlpb2LSJ0J1ghQca1R/uNtXXC9 xzFEM1zqWEgsgyn49UnfxX7LMbawX/NSyDUyjuPrINaZ8SZKAtbWmlndH6Sk093IWfxY EiHF0uB97Z92zg97VX4Tz+Dxwlb8dfs5Ta+1ozZe2ht5XAKYuazakEShAWqaETfhOuuy zTDVAI2XYcNCSxWDliAiEdQ4QcFceNQv4HytggquW7aOGXGFQsIDAOOA14GQbFIsZN6J pipw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=oUFXJBtD8IYp41s4E609Wpn9kwYJWtauMTnYpNnqhO4=; b=Wf03VL2rZiSMsqzMk+wFZ2vQfMoTh+yJkLKmK+gC2YZC2qJyvhHcBBkkuhE0hh7Jg3 xtO0dIUAqUGpBNIPf/dF8RIyRO+YrfoUiUpregDY5NoLaCHKDX4jKDkEXmJaBHxSRq6X f3wjV2aiuqgDch40HzwxPszZI9Botx/XpopLLKMfQb6bgqa7MALCXHQS6+kMD0GemxCc is3g3dRBkSEURSKgNK8HoeexGsjUoAmAEjt0mmzD7UEKzsjNabtxD1M2Dj1Q0E0D51pO KZzTbMgeVHySVDCgTE8YYhUMM3QPjmdQZDorpdp9Xn0gUEZKk7NVW7psvG7U5KnmgohA oe8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ArzjTLRd2fgbgFCnRUEtSU299CC9UqCpfJJlges1KvuqlTRME 8jEUM8elcPijrI+WJBGEt7rkwFQqQclPSU//CULU82lYJWrNrw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxdNPCI8OSGM0X49XYYHvjvVy33x7Io740pI0HrbGgpu0/GgSafquimaGu7yoSelV1YPcGR5Q7dz0ebv4pIiKk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1d09:: with SMTP id i9mr17882023ila.207.1612822265181; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:11:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:10:54 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHANBtKUPVG2jrVT7pKEoPwKo6eYhVKbz-nD_Vf=g4cXj3j1qQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/auPaJ5O0lJxnYZ3byPcZYB8mFDM>
Subject: [pim] IGMP/MLD survey results and the way forward
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: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 22:11:10 -0000
Hi all Thanks to several volunteers, we got the survey done. Please see the results reported in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-komolafe-pim-igmp-mld-survey-report-00 Any comments on the survey? Based on this we will have to see if there are particular parts of the IGMPv3/MLDv2 RFCs that should be removed due to insufficient deployment experience, or if there are parts that need to be improved due to issues found during implementation or deployment. There are also erratas that need to be taken care of. Are there any volunteers to take part in that work? Basically we would be publishing new RFCs progressing IGMPv3 and MLDv2 to Internet Standard. Regards, Stig