Subject: RE: Issue 29: AD REVIEW: IPv6 Node Requirements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:22:08 +0200

Hi all,

The 2nd paragraph in 4.6 looks like:

 If an application is going to support Source-Specific Multicast, 
 it "SHOULD support MLDv2 but MAY support MLDv1 and conform to the 
 Source-Specific Multicast overview document [RFC3569]; refer to 
 Source-Specific Multicast architecture document for details [SSMARCH].

I think that is sufficient strength to address Jean-Jacques concern,
as SHOULD is quite strong.

thanks,
John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:47:44 -0500

John,

> as SHOULD is quite strong.

I don't think that works.  MLDv2 is required in order to support SSM
as per [SSMARCH] and draft-holbrook-idmr-igmpv3-ssm-05.txt.  So, it
needs to be worded as it was originally written.

The issue with MLDv1 and MLDv2 interaction described very well in the
MLDv2 spec.  There is nothing that needs to be in node reqs to deal
with that case imho.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:56:28 +0200

> as SHOULD is quite strong.

Hmm.... I think RFC 3569 says that you can only do SSM with MLDv2,
not with MLDv1. Also, I wouldn't put an informative document like
3569 after a keyword.

We need to put Brian's SHOULD..MAY suggestion into the text, but
in a slightly different form. Here is one suggested rewrite:

4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)

    Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2
    [MLDv2]. However, if the node has applications which only need
    support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement
    MLDv1 [MLDv1] instead. If the node has applications which need
    support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the
    node MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2].

    When MLD is used, the rules in "Source Address Selection for the
    Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be
    followed.

--Jari

---

From: Jean-Jacques Pansiot <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:32:40 +0100

Jari Arkko wrote:
>>  If an application is going to support Source-Specific Multicast,  it 
>> "SHOULD support MLDv2 but MAY support MLDv1 and conform to the 

I agree with Jari,

moreover, MLDv2 is not only necessary for SSM but also useful to select sources
in an ASM group (using the source filter API : draft-ietf-magma-msf-api-05.txt
). If a host implementing  MLDv1 is a member of group G, then all other 
receivers of the same group (and implementing MLDv2) must use MLDv1 (and 
therefore cannot express their sources of interest) for this group until
this host leaves the group.

Jean-Jacques

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:40:59 -0500

I agree with Jari's proposed text.

Brian

---

From: Claudio Lori <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:12:19 +0100

>    Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be

unsubscribe

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:38:15 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

(offtopic, but this seems to be a very difficult subject for many people)

How difficult is it to unsubscribe from mailman managed mailinglists

This URL contains all the information and html forms to unsubscribe.
Note also that the headers contain:

List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>

Thus even a message to [email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe should
unsubscribe you. This *should* be clear enough for any person that has
at least some brains :)

If you don't have enough brains, or there are some other issues you
can ofcourse contact [email-masked] which will also take care
of your requests swiftly.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Claudio Lori <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:46:03 +0100

Jean-Jacques Pansiot wrote:

> ). If a host implementing  MLDv1 is a member of group G, then all 
> other receivers of the same group (and implementing MLDv2) must use 
> MLDv1 (and therefore cannot express their sources of interest) for 
> this group until