Subject: PIM-SM spec comments

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 22:32:00 -0800

In response to the PIM-SM spec last call, a group consisting of Isidor
Kouvelas, Lorenzo Vicisano, Mark Handley and I reviewed the spec.  We came
up with a long list of spec and protocol issues; the shorthand notes
from the meeting were a few hundred lines long.  Since a single email
of a few hundred lines would surely not get every point addressed, we
attempted to seperate things out into individual issues.  These issues
are listed at http://www.aciri.org/fenner/mcast/pim/sm/issues.html .
The summary is attached at the end of this message.

Hope everyone has a happy New Year!

  Bill

                            Issues with PIM-SM spec
                                       
   Notation:
     * ** means more work needs to be done, either more analysis or the
       work of actually determining what goes in the spec.
     * It's difficult to refer to specific bullets in the spec because of
       the formatting. The notation used is
       section/[subsection]/bullet#[/bullet#...]. E.g. section 3.2.1 has
       2 subsections, the one on Periodic Join/Prune messages and one on
       Triggered Join/Prune messages, with top-level bullet #'s repeated
       in both. The top-level bullet in each section is referred to as
       3.2.1/periodic/1 and 3.2.1/triggered/1.
       
   #  Description
   -- -----------
   13 Setting IIF on (S,G)RPT-bit joins
   17 Extraneous state creation on reception of erroneous (S,G)RPT-bit prune
   18 Must allow for prune-override when receiving (S,G)RPT-bit prune
   26 RPs must retain state about sources if they send Register-Stop
   27 Turnaround rules incompletely specified
   11 Setting the SPT-bit in a new (S,G) entry
   12 Setting SPT in existing (S,G) entries.
   19 Should (*,G) prune affect (S,G) entries?
   21 Discussion of overriding prunes should accompany j/p-suppression timer
   23 Extraneous (S,G)RPT-bit prune
   24 Preventing loops caused by shared tree/source subnet overlap
   32 (*,G) joins undoing (S,G) Asserts
   33 Need GenID per interface
   4 (S,G) state being kept alive by data
   6 Simplified (S,G)-RPT-bit Prune Rules
   7 Contradiction on Including (*,G) Prune
   8 Missing actions for OIF list going from non-null to null
   9 Prune-override wars
   10 Prune Overrides to non-RPF neighbor
   14 Extraneous section on (S,G)RPTbit joins
   15 General comment: overlapping sections when receiving messages
   16 Don't ignore prunes if group members are present
   20 Less-specific joins should suppress more-specific ones
   22 Not clear when you have a Join/Prune-Suppression timer
   29 Extra rule about forwarding
   30 Extraneous rule creating arbitrary (S,G) state
   31 Huge oif-deletion-delay
   34 DR sends (*,G) joins when it shouldn't
   36 Spec describes actions at too low a level
   37 iif of loop-prevention entry should be specified
   38 Longest-match in RP-Set?
   1 Formatting: page lengths
   2 Formatting: section identification
   3 Formatting: "aragraphFragmentation"
   25 Formatting: duplicated item numbering in section 3.4
   28 Incorrect hierarchy in section 3.3.2
     _________________________________________________________________

    Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
    Mark Handley <[email-masked]>
    Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
    Lorenzo Vicisano <[email-masked]>