Subject: mboned: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-06.txt

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:21:28 +0200 (EET)

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the read,
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> 1. I suggest that the Abstract mentions that this document obsoletes and
> reclassifies as Historic documents related to BGMP, CBT and MOSPF. 

As the list of RFCs is rather long, I suppose that a more generic note 
would also be OK ("Obsoletes and reclassifies as Historic a number of 
older multicast protocol documents.") 

> 2. In Section 2.1.7 - the reference for the CBT protocol should be
> [RFC2189]. 2201 is the CBT architecture document.

Probably should obsolete both? :-)

> 3. In Section 2.7.2 -
> 
>   'IEEE 802.1D-2004 specification describes Generic Attribute
>    Registration Protocol (GARP), and GARP Multicast Registration
>    Protocol (GMRP) [GMRP] is a link-layer multicast group application of
>    GARP that notifies switches about IP multicast group memberships.
>    GMRP requires support at the host stack and it has not been widely
>    implemented.  Further, IEEE considers GMRP obsolete having been
>    replaced by Multicast Multiple Registration Protocol (MMRP) that's
>    being specified in IEEE 802.1ak [802.1ak].  MMRP is expected to be
>    mainly used between bridges.  Some further information about GARP/
>    GMRP is also available in Appendix B of [RFC3488].'
> 
> 802.1ak is not yet approved, so the text should be more cautious in
> declaring GMRP obsolete.

The language is a bit strong, but that seemed to be the thrust of the 
informal liaison response from:

http://www.iab.org/liaisons/ieee/2006-07-ieee802-liaison-report.html

Is the informal liaison response not strong enough to say "IEEE 
considers GMRP obsolete"?  Maybe more correct would be that the 
particular WG considers it obsolete.  Or do you have a suggestion for 
rewording that?

> Then it should be made clear that 802.1ak
> defines a Multiple Registration Protocol (MRP) which obsoletes GARP,
> with GVRP which is an application of GARP being obsolete by MMRP which
> is an application of MRP. 

I think the reasoning for excluding MRP was that I wanted to avoid 
introducing Yet Another Three Letter Acronym which might confuse more 
than help.  But if you (or someone else) could suggest clear enough 
text replacement, I could certainly do this..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

---

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:51:22 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> >    GARP that notifies switches about IP multicast group memberships.

I just noticed this. Is that statement correct? GMRP doesn't really know
anything about IP multicasts, right? It's MAC multicasts that it
concerns itself with, yes?

Bert