Re: [pim] agenda requests for Montreal

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Hah, PIM and MBoned have parted ways in IETF102 i see, so
yes, i will ask for a slot primarily to make MBoned aware of this
(as PIM is after MBoned) and focussing on the aspects
where such official changes would incur operational challenges.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 03:04:09PM -0700, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I think this is a good topic and should hopefully be an interesting
> discussion. It would be good to see if people agree that deployments
> should use IGMPv3/MLDv2, and to what extent and how strongly we should
> discourage the older versions. I also would like to see if there is
> interest in advancing IGMPv3/MLDv2 on the standards track. This may
> require us to find volunteers (Toerless and others) to work on related
> drafts.
> 
> Perhaps you should consider a slot in mboned as well, as this has a
> lot to do with deployment?
> 
> Stig
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > WOuld like to ask for a "new new draft currently" to discuss
> > interest and process to evolve standards status of IGMP/MLD
> >
> >    a)  downgrade IGMPv1/IGMPv2/MLDv1 to something worse than IGMPv3/MLDv2/IGMP-MLD-lite
> >       - goal is to do everything we can do to discourage utilization of old protocols
> >         in new products.
> >
> >    b) Raising standards track level of IGMPv3/MLDv2/IGMP-MLD-lite
> >
> >    c) documenting/mitigating ? Risk in deployments upgrading.
> >
> >
> > I for once have really no clue on what the process for a), b) is and what
> > our options are, so i hope we'll have a friendly AD or more senior IETF
> > pprocess aware folks who could help figuring ou the best option quickly.
> >
> > Wrt to c): After raising a) on the list i talkd to a customer who was
> > worried about a) happening because of i think a range of issues:
> >
> >   a) misunderstanding how IGMPv3/MLDv2 are fully backward compatible
> >      with IGMPv2 / MLDv1 functionality and also fully support ASM.
> >
> >   b) In any text we may produce about downgrading older IGMP/MLD<
> >      it needs to be very clear that this implies NO change to the
> >      status of ASM (and the separate work we are doing to change the status
> >      of ASM will only downgrade interdomain ASM).
> >
> >   c) In the specific deplyment, intradomain ASM is used wih Bidir-PIM,
> >      and to the best of my knowledge, the interaction between Bidir-PIM and
> >      IGMPv3/MLDv2 is not well specified, but IMHO its also not really well
> >      specified for PIM-SM.
> >
> > Let me know. 10 mins or so ?
> >
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
> >
> > (*): If you prefer me to have slides highlighting
> >
> >
> > In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:13:48PM +0000, Michael McBride wrote:
> >> If you haven't yet requested time to present in Montreal please do so. We are meeting back to back, same room, with mboned but not sharing the same timeslot since we were way to rushed last time. Grab a cookie then come to pim. Here are the time slots:
> >>
> >> TUESDAY, July 17, 2018
> >>
> >> 1330-1530  Afternoon Session I
> >> Notre Dame            OPS     mboned          MBONE Deployment WG
> >>
> >> 1530-1550  Beverage and Snack Break - Convention Floor Foyer
> >>
> >> 1550-1820  Afternoon Session II
> >> Notre Dame            RTG     pim             Protocols for IP Multicast WG
> >>
> >> We will send an agenda out in another week.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> mike
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pim mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > [e-mail]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pim mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim