Re: [pim] Volunteers needed for work on progressing IGMP/MLD on the standards track

Hi,

(Well, I developed and opened IGMPv3/MLDv2/LW-IGMPv3/LW-MLDv2 BSD kernel implementations more than 10y ago, but) I don't have deployment experiences. Yet I'm willing to contribute to this work.

As with the discussion in the previous meetings, I believe Lightweight IGMPv3/MLDv2 (RFC5790) will be the base specification for IGMPv3/MLDv2 on DS. It may be a positive situation that RFC5790 also provide a simple way to escape from the backward compatibility problem.
I expect that the explicit tracking function, which is currently stacked (sorry about that), will be also included as one of the core function.

Note that RFC5790 eliminates the EXCLUDE (S,G) mode operation while it gives the interoperability with that operation (by translating to the EXCLUDE (*,G) operation). At this point, we should discuss whether IGMPv3/MLDv2 on DS will eliminates the EXCLUDE (S,G) mode operation as RFC5790 does or keeps it as the "option" so that it won't be completely deprecated from the protocol. (I personally prefer its elimination, though).

Regards,

Hitoshi

> On 2018/11/21, at 5:58, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Currently IGMPv3 and MLDv2 are Proposed Standard, and we have good
> support in the working group for progressing them to Internet
> Standard. This is similar to the work that was done for PIM-SM (RFC
> 4601) a few years back. In order to do this, we should try to
> determine if there are parts of RFC 3376 and RFC 3810 that have not
> been widely implemented, and also if people have found any
> interoperability issues. For PIM-SM we had a team of volunteers that
> created separate surveys for vendors and operators. These surveys were
> then distributed as widely as possible, and we had someone receive the
> reports by email and anonymizing them. The volunteer team then wrote
> RFC 7063 based on their findings. The team also then worked on
> revising RFC 4601, using these findings as input, and published PIM-SM
> as Internet Standard (RFC 7761). Please see RFC 7063 for more details
> on the methodology, and also the exact surveys that were created.
> 
> In order to progress IGMP/MLD I think we should follow the same
> procedure, but there could be other options. If you believe we should
> do it differently, please respond to this thread.
> 
> We need a team of volunteers that can lead this work. It would be best
> if we have a wide representation from vendors plus people from
> operators or others that have deployment experience. If we agree on
> following the same procedure, the first step would be to create the
> surveys. It would be best that a draft gets published with the
> proposed surveys, and we can then discuss the proposal in the working
> group, and have the draft revised accordingly. Once the working group
> is happy with the proposed surveys we can then conduct the survey. I'm
> also hoping that the same volunteer team can afterwards work on
> revising the RFCs.
> 
> If you are interested in volunteering, please let us know. Also, any
> comments on the process would be welcome.
> 
> Regards,
> Stig
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim