IETF Logo Mail Archive

[RTG-DIR]Re: [pim] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10

David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net> Tue, 23 July 2024 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <equinox@diac24.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1FEC169435; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TLS6E8z_thOt; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eidolon.nox.tf (eidolon.nox.tf [IPv6:2a07:2ec0:2185::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31500C16941B; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from equinox by eidolon.nox.tf with local (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from <equinox@diac24.net>) id 1sWOfN-00000004daM-3kQw; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 01:11:34 +0200
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 01:11:33 +0200
From: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>
To: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ZqA4pRrSIHbEChRn@eidolon.nox.tf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <171645303257.23265.13071555183433458489@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID-Hash: E6SYXOT2L7M6CRE3M45C2KPBSLSBDJTQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: E6SYXOT2L7M6CRE3M45C2KPBSLSBDJTQ
X-MailFrom: equinox@diac24.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-3810bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [RTG-DIR]Re: [pim] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/1AjlM8BpRSZn55zVmUQflsq0dlY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-dir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-leave@ietf.org>

Hi all,


having just been in 6man:  there is a bit of unfortunate parallel
"business" going on with draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert[1].
That draft is suggesting the IPv6 router alert option be deprecated.
3810bis makes no change to MLD behavior, which is that receivers MUST
discard packets without router alert. (sections 6.2, 7.4, 7.6 and 10)

3810bis[0] is quite far into the publication process, but it might still
make sense to look at this?

(I'll also bring this up in tomorrow's pim session.)

Cheers,


equi
(David)

[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-3810bis/
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert/

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status