[pim] draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-05
"Sowmya Krishnaswamy (sowkrish)" <sowkrish@cisco.com> Wed, 18 March 2015 07:00 UTC
Return-Path: <sowkrish@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 6F7D31A1A9C for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:00:34 -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 D0cPFkaZ32wf for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71E4B1A00BD for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3840; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1426662029; x=1427871629; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=qG9mlCJtaKUwdsXdOxQ7ybYXuvScmZHtrI7xe5tIBMw=; b=Y8FgtFIpOs1rlKG4OEJxTqVf+kUg3PcjiW8cIMgBME7w1fVPeIfe0OZW atEmvIpoo3bc1qfsw/4idF4vuj+eWdXajlaZczzt4+ej8t54oM+CRR3qk 9J1bRn+uwJDdz7o/dtXoW4pzSpn1wqzTnNEjNmFXaiJ8y/VsiR3YDmvMg w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DZBwAPIglV/4YNJK1bgkNDUgpLCYURvkaCOoc6TAEBAQEBAX2EFm4dAQx0JwQciCYIBaAlq1GUPAWQQ4lqlCQjg26BcyQcfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,421,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="133046760"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2015 07:00:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2I70S9l003545 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 07:00:28 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([169.254.15.25]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 02:00:28 -0500
From: "Sowmya Krishnaswamy (sowkrish)" <sowkrish@cisco.com>
To: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-05
Thread-Index: AQHQYUk2ROJzEvaWg0mnzu15NhLptQ==
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 07:00:27 +0000
Message-ID: <D12E7106.16A34%sowkrish@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.6.141106
x-originating-ip: [10.24.218.167]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D12E710616A34sowkrishciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/ncAuDNG8pPjdh1l37UpNpWo5o0k>
Subject: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-05
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: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 07:00:34 -0000
Dear all, We got consensus to support the explicit RPF vector function in previous meetings and this mailing list. We have addressed the questions and suggestions from the WG. There are a few minor changes to the text from the previous version. The main clarification is in section 1 where we state that the draft does not introduce any new mechanism in PIM to validate the correctness of the RPF vectors. It is upto the mechanisms that produced the Explicit RPF vectors to ensure they are correct. Existing mechanisms like [I-D.ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2] may be used to verify how the PIM tree was built. There are other minor editorial changes in Figure.1. Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-05 We hope that the revised document now is ready for publication. Best Regards, Sowmya
- [pim] draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-05 Sowmya Krishnaswamy (sowkrish)