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

Hi Stig,

Sorry for the delay in responding.  I was getting advice :-)

If A obsoletes B and C updates B, then other than rolling C into A, there is
nothing to do for A.  That C updates A should be automatic inheritance.

Regards,
Alia

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>