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 <[e-mail]>]

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 ?

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 ?

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 <[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] mailing lists by 2015-02-27. Exceptionally, comments may
> > be
> > > sent to [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/
> > >
> > > 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:   [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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pim mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> >

> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim


-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [e-mail]