Subject: [pim] PIM recharter

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:41:44 -0500

Hi PIM WG,

I have discussed what a new charter for PIM should look like with the WG
chairs.  I did consider working on changing the name or possibly merging
with MBONED, but have decided against either of these at this time.  For
the latter, I heard a strong preference from several for a protocols group
and an operations group.  I did hear some support for merging as well.

This is the basic charter that I'd like to submit for internal review on
March 5.  Please send comments to the list this week.

===============
The PIM working group, so named because its scope was initially only
Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM), is chartered to work on multiple
multicast protocols.  The Working Group is responsible for the
maintenance of PIM, IGMP, and MLD.

The Working Group will work on the following specific items:

1) Management for PIM:  YANG models for PIM, IGMP, and MLD will be
   developed.  If updates to existing MIB modules are necessary, the
   WG may work on those.

2) Reliable PIM:  The WG will develop mechanisms to improve the reliability
   of PIM signaling.

3) Improve PIM authentication: The WG will work on improvements to PIM
   authentication.

4) Improve and Extend PIM Join Attributes to support different types
   of multicast applications.

5) Optimization approaches for IGMP and MLD to adapt to link
   conditions in wireless and mobile networks and be more robust to
   packet loss.

Additional work items may be added with a recharter.

The WG should discuss and develop new ideas related to multicast
protocols and distributing of multicast-related information.  The WG must
be explicitly rechartered to adopt any.

The WG should investigate any extensions needed to support BIER and
BIER interworking.  If additional work is required, then the WG may be
rechartered to accomplish the specific extensions.

The WG is expected to use its extensive multicast knowledge to
actively review and participate in WG Last Calls with multicast work
that occurs in other WGs, such as MPLS, BESS, ROLL, and BIER.
============

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:15:57 -0800

Let me add mboned here to chime in to some of my Q/comments, and because
i hope you folks did come to these charter conclusions in conjunction with
MBoned.

a) Clueless question & I have no opinion, i just thought it to be interesting to see Netconf/Yang
   in the protocol working group. Isn't that usually a domain for the operational groups ?

b) I wish there was equal interest and support to work out recommendations for
   IP multicast in homenet. But given how i am happy to reuse as much as
   possible what we already have, this might be a better topic for MBoned.
   There certainly is a lack of agreement on use case priorities for multicast
   in homenet.  Just wondering what you had considered for this....

c) Where can i find the use-case justification for charter item 3 ?
   How does PIM-WG vet whether we would develop a document that has sufficient
   interest/demand from implementers ?
   
d) Is there some explanation how to distinguish between 2) and 5) Looks to me
   as potentially being the same.

e) I would like to see the charter describing when any of the charter items is
   aligned with another WG. Eg: 5) says "mobile".. so is this based on asks by
   MANET or any other IETF-WG ?

Cheers
    Toerless

> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [email-masked]

---

From: Caitlin Bestler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:39:08 -0800

On 2/23/15 12:41 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Hi PIM WG,
>
> I have discussed what a new charter for PIM should look like with the 
> WG chairs.  I did consider working on changing the name or possibly 
> merging with MBONED, but have decided against either of these at this 
> time.  For the latter, I heard a strong preference from several for a 
> protocols group and an operations group.  I did hear some support for 
> merging as well.
>
> This is the basic charter that I'd like to submit for internal review 
> on March 5.  Please send comments to the list this week.
>
>
The set of work that the group would be responsible for is fairly clear 
from this description, and it clearly begs for a matching name.
But there's nothing fatal about proceeding with a legacy name as long as 
the scope is clear.

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:46:34 -0500

Hi Caitlin,

> But there's nothing fatal about proceeding with a legacy name as long as

That was my thought as well.  It's harder to connect up the discussions and
old RFC with closing a WG and then
opening another - which is what a renaming really is.  There is some
downside to that and since the recharter isn't
adding significant work, there doesn't seem to me to be a strong enough
benefit.

Alia

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:16:15 -0500

> i hope you folks did come to these charter conclusions in conjunction with

I have spoken with the mboned chairs.

>    in the protocol working group. Isn't that usually a domain for the

It is the YANG models that are in scope, just like MIBs are, and for the
same reasons.  The
protocol experts are here and understand how the protocol configuration and
data should be
modeled.

>    in homenet.  Just wondering what you had considered for this....

I had not considered the multicast work for homenet.  I haven't heard an
ask from
homenet and assume that it is fairly tightly correlated to what they decide
to do for
a unicast routing protocol.  Recommendations on how to use existing IP
multicast
does sound like it may be more for mboned.

>    interest/demand from implementers ?

The current charter says:
"We will accomplish these enhancements by submitting drafts, to the
IESG, involving reliable pim, pim join attributes and pim
authentication".

I pulled these out into separate slightly more detailed items.  I've
already heard that
reliable PIM may have meant PIM over TCP (which is done) rather than aspects
around make-before-break or fast recovery.

If the WG isn't interested in improving PIM authentication, then I can
remove it.

>    as potentially being the same.

Clearly, if (2) stays in the charter, it needs more clarification.  Do you
have suggestions
on better clarification for either (2) or (5)?

>    MANET or any other IETF-WG ?

Where there are interactions, I do try to capture them.

Regards,
Alia

---

From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:21:19 +0000

Alia, WG,

What does the above exactly mean? The old charter has “reliable pim” that seems to be related to pim-port, which has been finished.

Jeffrey

From: pim [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: EXT - [email-masked]; Brian Haberman; Deborah Brungard ([email-masked])
Subject: [pim] PIM recharter

Hi PIM WG,

I have discussed what a new charter for PIM should look like with the WG chairs.  I did consider working on changing the name or possibly merging with MBONED, but have decided against either of these at this time.  For the latter, I heard a strong preference from several for a protocols group and an operations group.  I did hear some support for merging as well.

This is the basic charter that I'd like to submit for internal review on March 5.  Please send comments to the list this week.

===============

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 18:24:44 -0500

IP Multicast over 802.11 is inefficient and unreliable. I would like to see at least one of the multicast working groups in the IETF have a chartered item to work with the IEEE coordinating a solution to this mess. Or at least a coordinated effort to state our dis-satisfaction with the current mess and make a formal request to provide high bandwidth, efficient multicast over 802.11 without sending unicast copies to each group member. After all, it is a radio and it is being broadcast…

Tom

> On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi PIM WG,
>

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:37:35 -0800

Ditto for 802.15.4.

Dino

> On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:58:53 -0800

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 05:16:15PM -0500, Alia Atlas wrote:
> same reasons.  The protocol experts are here and understand how the protocol configuration and
> data should be modeled.

Ok, i do remember how we did MIBs back in the days in PIM/MAGMA.
Not sure why i thought that Yang models where in OPS. Maybe because Benoit
is doing them. ;-)

I also think there is a big difference between MIBs and YANG. The
MIBs we produced where mostly just 1:1 representations or protocol state.

The YANG models should be good operator configuration / provisioning
interfaces. More like "better than CLI", not "better than MIB". And
thats where i think operator experience is important.

> does sound like it may be more for mboned.

Well, Pierre did present last IETF (not sure if it was PIM or MBONED) some
interesting ideas. Would be great if more folks would look into multicast
in homenet.

> I've already heard that

Yes, i would have also thought reliable PIM means PORT. I didn't make a
comment about it as i am not aware if/what additional work is needed. I

> If the WG isn't interested in improving PIM authentication, then I can

We always "like" improving PIM, the question is who needs it and how would
they use it. Maybe you can help asking the security area experts for more
input to the extend that they also express their support in the work going forward.

> > d) Is there some explanation how to distinguish between 2) and 5) Looks to
> > me  as potentially being the same.
> >
> 
> have suggestions on better clarification for either (2) or (5)?

For (2) anybody who thinks its more than PORT should stand up and chime
in, and in the absence of that i'd leave it to the folks working on
PORT to say if/what additional work is needed.

For (5), i have heard some reverberations that soft-state multicast
signaling protocols are too unreliable over lousy / loss / marginal
networks. Especially with key lousy networks (802.11) being particularily
lousey for multicast packets.

I think its interesting to do a problem analysis for marginal networks.
I am not sure i think i know whether there is a clear solution direction.

For example, i can easily make the problem statement that PIM/IGMP
are bad over bad WiFi APs + lousy WiFi links. But that problem statemenet 
doesn't help me because i may just be making PIM/IGMP signaling more
resilient and then applications may still not be able to deal with the
loss for their content...

Thanks
    Toerless

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:03:46 -0800

Indeed.

Don't we have IEEE contacts in IETF ? If we have time during PIM in Dallas
it would be good to bring those in and brainstorm what we could do.

For example, i am sure we could put together some initial analysis document
ourselves with even possible suggestions how to improve, but its totally
unclear to me how to throw this over he fence so that it get picked up
and how to structure it so that it does have the biggest chance to get
picked up.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 06:24:44PM -0500, Tom Pusateri wrote:
> IP Multicast over 802.11 is inefficient and unreliable. I would like to see at least one of the multicast working groups in the IETF have a chartered item to work with the IEEE coordinating a solution to this mess. Or at least a coordinated effort to state our dis-satisfaction with the current mess and make a formal request to provide high bandwidth, efficient multicast over 802.11 without sending unicast copies to each group member. After all, it is a radio and it is being broadcast???
> 
> Tom
>

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:11:25 -0800

Hi

Reliable pim in the old charter was indeed PORT which is done. There could
be more work in that area, but not aware of any specific interest.

Pim authentication was mainly in the charter because protocols generally
are supposed to have strong security. There may be work to be done, but I
haven't seen that much interest for that either. We had some discussion
related to karp, and there are implementations doing IPsec to some degree.

Stig

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:18:31 -0500

Tom, Dino, and Toerless,

Thank you for bringing up the concerns about IP Multicast over 802.11.
I am checking with our liaison to see if there is interest in this topic.
It
would really really help to have a quick write-up (draft preferably) of
what the
existing issues are and possibly some exploration of what level or protocol
they should be solved at.

We have very helpful IEEE liaisons and I'm sure that we can figure out
how to structure it.  The first key is writing up the initial analysis
document
and determining if the PIM WG is interested.

Given when the next IEEE 802.11 meeting is, doing this in the next week
would be ideal.

I am not familiar with 802.15.4 and suspect it is a different liaison at
IEEE to
talk to.  Including the issues for that in the same write-up/draft would be
fine.

Regards,
Alia

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > IP Multicast over 802.11 is inefficient and unreliable. I would like to
> see at least one of the multicast working groups in the IETF have a
> chartered item to work with the IEEE coordinating a solution to this mess.
> Or at least a coordinated effort to state our dis-satisfaction with the
> current mess and make a formal request to provide high bandwidth, efficient
> multicast over 802.11 without sending unicast copies to each group member.
> After all, it is a radio and it is being broadcast???
> >
> > Tom
> >
> WG chairs.  I did consider working on changing the name or possibly merging

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:21:02 -0500

Hi Stig,

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Stig Venaas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification.  I'll remove the reliable PIM work-item.
Do you see graceful restart/fast-recovery items like
draft-bhattacharya-pim-fast-recovery-00
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bhattacharya-pim-fast-recovery/> as
something that we need to capture in the charter now?

> related to karp, and there are implementations doing IPsec to some degree.
I would like to leave the ability for PIM to work on improving
authentication.  I'd like to see active interest - but it is a good for the
protocol and internet type of thing to work on.

Regards,
Alia

---

From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:52:46 +0000

Alia,

I am disappointed this charter text. It is very different from the proposed and discussed charter text on the mailing list. The following charter text only allows working on PIM/IGMP/MLD protocol. Any other item is in “may” category and requires WG rechartering to work on it.

You know that IGP multicast proposal and homenet were discussed in PIM in Honolulu.  There were interests to work on these technologies and you suggested that PIM WG is the right place to work on IGP multicast (was discussed in IS-IS WG several times).  But the new charter text does not accept it as a work item and make it as “may or may not”.  This does not reflect the outcome from Honolulu meeting. Why do you want make this gate for IGP multicast and homenet?

BIER WG is not formed yet and BIER targets for experimental first, why the charter text is already favor of it?

I strongly propose to include IGP multicast as a work item in the WG new charter, also think that renaming it as MCAST is good for the WG in long term.

Regards,
Lucy

From: pim [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: joel jaeggli; Brian Haberman; Deborah Brungard ([email-masked])
Subject: [pim] PIM recharter

Hi PIM WG,

===============

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:09:24 -0500

Lucy,

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  Alia,
>
>
>
> I am disappointed this charter text. It is very different from the
> proposed and discussed charter text on the mailing list. The following
> charter text only allows working on PIM/IGMP/MLD protocol. Any other item
> is in “may” category and requires WG rechartering to work on it.
>

 Yes, I do not think that having a broadly open charter to come work on
anything is healthy for the WG.  We are working on what should be clearly
in charter and what areas the WG may explore but cannot work on unless the
recharter occurs.

>  You know that IGP multicast proposal and homenet were discussed in PIM
> in Honolulu.  There were interests to work on these technologies and you
> suggested that PIM WG is the right place to work on IGP multicast (was
> discussed in IS-IS WG several times).  But the new charter text does not
> accept it as a work item and make it as “may or may not”.  This does not
> reflect the outcome from Honolulu meeting. Why do you want make this gate
> for IGP multicast and homenet?
>
>
Because there has been NO DISCUSSION or WORK done on the IGP multicast
proposal since Honolulu.  The WG said that it was interesting - but has not
yet demonstrated active consensus and willingness to work on it.  I see a
message from Nov 10 on the mailing list (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/current/msg03055.html ) that was
never responded to.  This does not indicate to me that there is currently
active interest in developing the work in the WG.

Similarly, the homenet work has not been discussed on the mailing list.  It
has been raised by one other in this thread as something of potential
interest.  Sure - but I need more information on what that work should
entail and whom would actually do it.

That's why both of these items are not explicitly in the charter.   There
is the possibility to add them later - but I must see active consensus to
work on them and some actual work.  The IGP multicast proposal is
interesting - but it is also clearly another way of doing multicast.

BIER WG is not formed yet and BIER targets for experimental first, why the
> charter text is already favor of it?
>

BIER is already past the IESG internal review and I expect that it will be
chartered before Dallas.

>  I strongly propose to include IGP multicast as a work item in the WG new
> charter, also think that renaming it as MCAST is good for the WG in long
> term.
>

I understand that, as a primary author, you are in favor of the IGP
multicast work.
I am not renaming the WG at this time; I did consider it and explain my
reasoning at the
start of this thread.

Regards,
Alia

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Lucy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* pim [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Alia Atlas
> *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 2:42 PM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Cc:* joel jaeggli; Brian Haberman; Deborah Brungard ([email-masked])
> *Subject:* [pim] PIM recharter
>
>
>
> Hi PIM WG,
>
>
>

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 08:49:25 -0800

Hi

We would be happy to have Homenet and IGP work on our agenda again this
time. Let's see what the level of interest is in the meeting.

Stig

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:08:30 -0800

> I am not familiar with 802.15.4 and suspect it is a different liaison at IEEE to
> talk to.  Including the issues for that in the same write-up/draft would be fine.

You might want to consult the 6lo and 6tisch working groups.

Dino

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:15:08 -0500

> You might want to consult the 6lo and 6tisch working groups.

The first POC should be Dan Romascanu, who coordinates the IESG / IEEE
802 relationship.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:16:35 -0500

Brian,

Yup - Dan has pointed me on to Dorothy for the 802.11 relationship.
I'm waiting to hear back from her.

In the meantime, getting the issues written down would be very helpful.
We can talk to 6lo or 6tisch also and figure out where what work should go.

Alia

---

From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:58:54 +0000

Alia,
[snip]

 Yes, I do not think that having a broadly open charter to come work on anything is healthy for the WG.  We are working on what should be clearly in charter and what areas the WG may explore but cannot work on unless the recharter occurs.

Because there has been NO DISCUSSION or WORK done on the IGP multicast proposal since Honolulu.  The WG said that it was interesting - but has not yet demonstrated active consensus and willingness to work on it.  I see a message from Nov 10 on the mailing list ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/current/msg03055.html ) that was never responded to.  This does not indicate to me that there is currently active interest in developing the work in the WG.
Lucy:  I did not response that email because that was in IETF meeting week and before the PIM meeting. Some questions and comments are addressed in our presentation and Ice were there. I did not know that you are waiting on some discussion on mailing list while We are waiting on the next charter text. In fact, we are working it offline.

Similarly, the homenet work has not been discussed on the mailing list.  It has been raised by one other in this thread as something of potential interest.  Sure - but I need more information on what that work should entail and whom would actually do it.

That's why both of these items are not explicitly in the charter.   There is the possibility to add them later - but I must see active consensus to work on them and some actual work.  The IGP multicast proposal is interesting - but it is also clearly another way of doing multicast.
Lucy: The proposal is supported by many vendors as of draft co-authors. Huawei has some implementation. I am not sure what kind of active consensus you look for at this point. We already clearly pointed out the use case for this in DC and why PIM can’t fit for the use case.

Lucy

BIER is already past the IESG internal review and I expect that it will be chartered before Dallas.

I understand that, as a primary author, you are in favor of the IGP multicast work.
I am not renaming the WG at this time; I did consider it and explain my reasoning at the
start of this thread.

Regards,
Alia

Regards,
Lucy

From: pim [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:42 PM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc: joel jaeggli; Brian Haberman; Deborah Brungard ([email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>)
Subject: [pim] PIM recharter

Hi PIM WG,

===============

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:04:31 -0500

Lucy,

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Lucy:  I did not response that email because that was in IETF meeting week
> and before the PIM meeting. Some questions and comments are addressed in
> our presentation and Ice were there. I did not know that you are waiting on
> some discussion on mailing list while We are waiting on the next charter
> text. In fact, we are working it offline.
>
>
[Alia] You know that conversations and decisions happen on the list.  One
of the critical aspects of IETF is that we have an open consensus process.
That means open discussion on the mailing list.  There is no reason to
"wait on the next charter text".  If you do the work and have the active
consensus and enthusiasm, that is key to the WG getting the work done.  Of
course, off-line and individual conversations happen and are also useful -
but doing them solely doesn't forward the standardization process.  This
particular email raised a concern about looping that I haven't seen
addressed.

>  Similarly, the homenet work has not been discussed on the mailing list.
> It has been raised by one other in this thread as something of potential
> Lucy: The proposal is supported by many vendors as of draft co-authors.
> Huawei has some implementation. I am not sure what kind of active consensus
> you look for at this point. We already clearly pointed out the use case for
> this in DC and why PIM can’t fit for the use case.
>

[Alia] I'm sure that you don't need me to explain that draft authors should
be writing the draft.  Support can be expressed in many ways - including
discussions.  I am happy to hear that Huawei has an implementation; that's
a good sign of serious interest and that the basic ideas can work.  I just
read through the draft again; it could be improved significantly to be
clearer.

[Alia] As I've said, the reception at the last IETF in the room was good
but nothing has confirmed that on the list.  I look forward to hearing more
discussion and opinions on the list and in Dallas.
Regards,
Alia

---

From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:45:42 +0000

[resend without too BIG message body]

Alia,
[snip]

[Alia] You know that conversations and decisions happen on the list.  One of the critical aspects of IETF is that we have an open consensus process.  That means open discussion on the mailing list.
[Lucy] This is my thought too. The charter text was openly discussed on the mailing list based on the WG consensus in Honolulu. ADs do not express any concern but change it now.
 There is no reason to "wait on the next charter text".  If you do the work and have the active consensus and enthusiasm, that is key to the WG getting the work done.  Of course, off-line and individual conversations happen and are also useful - but doing them solely doesn't forward the standardization process.  This particular email raised a concern about looping that I haven't seen addressed.
[Lucy] Yes, we need do our job and also need AD help. If you could ping us early on this concern, we would do that to avoid it.  I have replied Ice’s comments about looping concern.
 Similarly, the homenet work has not been discussed on the mailing list.  It has been raised by one other in this thread as something of potential interest.  Sure - but I need more information on what that work should entail and whom would actually do it.

[Alia] I'm sure that you don't need me to explain that draft authors should be writing the draft.  Support can be expressed in many ways - including discussions.  I am happy to hear that Huawei has an implementation; that's a good sign of serious interest and that the basic ideas can work.  I just read through the draft again; it could be improved significantly to be clearer.

[Alia] As I've said, the reception at the last IETF in the room was good but nothing has confirmed that on the list.  I look forward to hearing more discussion and opinions on the list and in Dallas.
[Lucy] This is my misunderstand. The charter text discussed on the mailing list was the confirmation in my mind.  Hope you /chairs can give some warning ahead. We will submit the architecture draft and present it in Dallas meeting.

Regards,
Lucy

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:18:02 -0500

Lucy,

Just to clarify and finish up this conversation.  In the proposed charter,
I have:

"The WG should discuss and develop new ideas related to multicast
protocols and distributing of multicast-related information.  The WG must
be explicitly rechartered to adopt any."

and the multicast work that I was specifically thinking of is the IGP-based
multicast work that you've
been working on.  I can certainly see and understand its potential
usefulness in data-center scenarios
as well as the trade-offs implied.

I am sorry if the previously floated charter raised expectations.  I was
busy at NANOG and didn't
have time to rapidly revise the preliminary draft version of the charter.

This really isn't about trying to have you jump through hoops.  It's trying
to make sure that
there's enough interest in the work that others will collaborate, that
others will review, and that it will
become a useful standard.

I would appreciate hearing from others on the mailing list about interest
in pursuing this work.

At this point, I am not expecting to have a final rechartering until after
Dallas and there should be time
in the meeting to discuss thoughts on the charter too.

Regards,
Alia

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

> That means open discussion on the mailing list.
>
> [Lucy] This is my thought too. The charter text was openly discussed on
> the mailing list based on the WG consensus in Honolulu. ADs do not express
> any concern but change it now.
>
>  There is no reason to "wait on the next charter text".  If you do the
> work and have the active consensus and enthusiasm, that is key to the WG
> getting the work done.  Of course, off-line and individual conversations
> happen and are also useful - but doing them solely doesn't forward the
> standardization process.  This particular email raised a concern about
> looping that I haven't seen addressed.
>
> [Lucy] Yes, we need do our job and also need AD help. If you could ping us
> early on this concern, we would do that to avoid it.  I have replied Ice’s
> comments about looping concern.
>
>   Similarly, the homenet work has not been discussed on the mailing
> list.  It has been raised by one other in this thread as something of
> potential interest.  Sure - but I need more information on what that work
> should entail and whom would actually do it.
>
>
>
> [Alia] I'm sure that you don't need me to explain that draft authors
> should be writing the draft.  Support can be expressed in many ways -
> including discussions.  I am happy to hear that Huawei has an
> implementation; that's a good sign of serious interest and that the basic
> ideas can work.  I just read through the draft again; it could be improved
> significantly to be clearer.
>
>
>
> [Lucy] This is my misunderstand. The charter text discussed on the mailing
> list was the confirmation in my mind.  Hope you /chairs can give some
> warning ahead. We will submit the architecture draft and present it in
> Dallas meeting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Lucy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:56:42 -0800

On 2/23/15 3:24 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote:
> IP Multicast over 802.11 is inefficient and unreliable. I would like
> to see at least one of the multicast working groups in the IETF have
> a chartered item to work with the IEEE coordinating a solution to
> this mess. Or at least a coordinated effort to state our
> dis-satisfaction with the current mess and make a formal request to
> provide high bandwidth, efficient multicast over 802.11 without
> sending unicast copies to each group member. After all, it is a radio
> and it is being broadcast…

It is a nice sentiment, I suspect that the cows may not be put entirely
back in barn.

When  the ability to go faster hinges on beam-forming or mimo spatial
optimization then the sytem is targeting the radio/spatial properties
of specific clients. if doing so dramatically improves the capacity the
of spectrum beyond what you can carry by replicating to all clients then
indeed the medium is probably more spectrally efficient of they are
individually targeted.

I don't think that's universal by any means but it does potentially
drive a preference for certain kinds of solutions over others.

>> I have discussed what a new charter for PIM should look like with
>> the WG chairs.  I did consider working on changing the name or
>> possibly merging with MBONED, but have decided against either of
>> these at this time.  For the latter, I heard a strong preference
>> from several for a protocols group and an operations group.  I did
>> hear some support for merging as well.
>> 
>> This is the basic charter that I'd like to submit for internal
>> review on March 5.  Please send comments to the list this week.
>> 
>> =============== The PIM working group, so named because its scope
>> was initially only Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM), is
>> chartered to work on multiple multicast protocols.  The Working
>> Group is responsible for the maintenance of PIM, IGMP, and MLD.
>> 
>> 2) Reliable PIM:  The WG will develop mechanisms to improve the
>> reliability of PIM signaling.
>> 
>> 3) Improve PIM authentication: The WG will work on improvements to
>> PIM authentication.
>> 
>> 4) Improve and Extend PIM Join Attributes to support different
>> types of multicast applications.
>> 
>> protocols and distributing of multicast-related information.  The
>> WG must be explicitly rechartered to adopt any.
>> 
>> The WG should investigate any extensions needed to support BIER
>> and BIER interworking.  If additional work is required, then the WG
>> may be rechartered to accomplish the specific extensions.
>> 
>> actively review and participate in WG Last Calls with multicast
>> work that occurs in other WGs, such as MPLS, BESS, ROLL, and BIER. 
>> ============
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, Alia _______________________________________________ pim
>> mailing list [email-masked]

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:58:46 -0800

The problem is that 802.11 didn't put in optimizations/better support fo
multicast from day 1 and this makes the gap between unicast and multicast
performance larger and larger with every improvement they make to unicast.
pretty sure you could also increase overall AP throughput with multicast
in the presence of MiMo. Is it easy ? Depends really how many
simultaneous receivers you have. The more, the easier.

On the pragmatic side of things, we could cask 802.11 if/how
we could help proliferate the multicast->unicast conversion that better
AP vendors implement. Given how it does include IGMP/MLD snooping, it
might be something that would be a good IETF document. Given how it uses
IGMP/MLD snooping it likely could also only be informational (if we follow
our past policies on snooping).

Using rfc7450 instead of L2 multicast->unicast conversion is another interesting
option. 

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:56:42PM -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
> > and it is being broadcast???
>

---

From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:41:55 +0000

Alia,

Please see inline below.

From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 8:18 PM
To: Lucy yong
Cc: [email-masked]; joel jaeggli; Brian Haberman; Deborah Brungard ([email-masked])
Subject: Re: [pim] PIM recharter

Lucy,

Just to clarify and finish up this conversation.  In the proposed charter, I have:

and the multicast work that I was specifically thinking of is the IGP-based multicast work that you've
been working on.  I can certainly see and understand its potential usefulness in data-center scenarios
as well as the trade-offs implied.

I am sorry if the previously floated charter raised expectations.  I was busy at NANOG and didn't
have time to rapidly revise the preliminary draft version of the charter.

This really isn't about trying to have you jump through hoops.  It's trying to make sure that
there's enough interest in the work that others will collaborate, that others will review, and that it will
become a useful standard.

I would appreciate hearing from others on the mailing list about interest in pursuing this work.

At this point, I am not expecting to have a final rechartering until after Dallas and there should be time
in the meeting to discuss thoughts on the charter too.
Lucy: OK, we will submit the arch draft, solicit comments/feedbacks, and present/discuss it in PIM in Dallas. Hope we reach a consistent consensus then.

Which WG should the draft be entitled for now?

Thanks,
Lucy

Regards,
Alia

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Lucy yong <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
[resend without too BIG message body]

Alia,
[snip]

Regards,
Lucy

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:12:45 -0800

Hi

The naming of the document doesn't matter for now. Please do an update
present a in this pim meeting and we'll discuss further whether the WG
wants this work to be done in pim. If there is enough interest and
energy in the group, then we can probably get it included in the new
charter.

Stig

---

From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:28:55 +0000

Stig,

Thanks you. We will do that.

Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: Stig Venaas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:13 AM
To: Lucy yong; Alia Atlas
Cc: joel jaeggli; Brian Haberman; Deborah Brungard ([email-masked]); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [pim] PIM recharter

Hi

The naming of the document doesn't matter for now. Please do an update present a in this pim meeting and we'll discuss further whether the WG wants this work to be done in pim. If there is enough interest and energy in the group, then we can probably get it included in the new charter.

Stig