Subject: [MBONED] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-23.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 23:06:44 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the MBONE Deployment WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Mtrace Version 2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast
        Authors         : Hitoshi Asaeda
                          Kerry Meyer
                          WeeSan Lee
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-23.txt
	Pages           : 38
	Date            : 2018-04-02

Abstract:
   This document describes the IP multicast traceroute facility, named
   Mtrace version 2 (Mtrace2).  Unlike unicast traceroute, Mtrace2
   requires special implementations on the part of routers.  This
   specification describes the required functionality in multicast
   routers, as well as how an Mtrace2 client invokes a query and
   receives a reply.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-23
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-23

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-23

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 15:12:41 +0900

Hi WG and Warren,

We've submitted our revised document for Mtrace version 2.

We believe we had addressed all comments and concerns given during the last IESG review.
Please kindly check the document and restart the IESG review again if you think it satisfies all.

Best regards,

Hitoshi Asaeda

> 2018/04/03 15:06, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:58:13 -0400

[ +EKR, Mirja ]

> Please kindly check the document and restart the IESG review again if you think it satisfies all.

Dear EKR and Mirja,

I think that this version addresses your DISCUSS points.

As it's been a while (2 1/2 months) I've included some links to try
and make this is bit easier:

Your initial reviews:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2/ballot/
Ballots: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-22&url2=draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-23

I've also tried to summarize your DISCUSS points and the fixes here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NZJkqvg504syBUNkhnB9wod20ajoEJhFIusmUbJ0P20/edit?usp=sharing

EKR: I'm not sure if you feel that the Security Considerations section
is now adequate.
Mirja: The document doesn't explicitly instruct IANA to update the
ports registry, but there is a reference to this draft already
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml?&page=129)
and so I beleive it will be done?

If these address your DISCUSS points, would you be willing to clear?

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:25:37 -0700

Hi Warren, hi Hitoschi,

thanks for the summary below!

Yes, the current version addresses my discus and I will clear now.

One comment on this new text:
"Each of these attempts should be initiated only after the previous	
 	   attempt has terminated ...“
Maybe use normative language here:
"Each of these attempts SOULD be initiated only after the previous	
 	   attempt has terminated ...“
Or even:
"Each of these attempts MUST only be initiated after the previous	
 	   attempt has terminated ...“
Or to ne even more clear:
"Each of these attempts MUST NOT be initiated before the previous	
 	   attempt has terminated ...“

Thanks!

Mirja

> Am 03.04.2018 um 10:58 schrieb Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>:
> 
> [ +EKR, Mirja ]
>

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 15:03:07 -0400

Awesome, thanks Mirja!

W