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

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
> <william.atwood@concordia.ca <mailto:william.atwood@concordia.ca>> 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
>      > ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org> mailing lists by 2015-02-27.
>     Exceptionally, comments may be
>      > sent to iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org> 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: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
>     <tel:%2B1%20%28514%29%20848-2424%20x3046>
>     Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax: +1 (514) 848-2830
>     <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:email%3Awilliam.atwood@concordia.ca>
>     1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
>     Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     pim mailing list
>     pim@ietf.org <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>