Subject: [pim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.txt> (Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)) to Internet Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:42:10 -0800

The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast
WG (pim) to consider the following document:
- 'Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
   Specification (Revised)'
  <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.txt> as Internet Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2015-02-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document specifies Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode
   (PIM-SM).  PIM-SM is a multicast routing protocol that can use the
   underlying unicast routing information base or a separate multicast-
   capable routing information base.  It builds unidirectional shared
   trees rooted at a Rendezvous Point (RP) per group, and optionally
   creates shortest-path trees per source.

   This document addresses errata filed against RFC 4601, and removes
   the optional (*,*,RP) feature that lacks sufficient deployment
   experience.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: William Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:04:17 -0500

In the following, I will refer to draft-ietf-pim-4601bis as simply
"4601bis".

RFC 4601 has been updated by several RFCs:

RFC 5059 Bootstrap Router (BSR) Mechanism for Protocol
         Independent Multicast (PIM)
RFC 5796 Authentication and Confidentiality in Protocol
         Independent Multicast Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
         Link-Local Messages
RFC 6226 PIM Group-to-Rendezvous-Point Mapping

4601bis refers to RFC 5059 in Section 3.7.  The new text is identical to
the text in RFC 4601, although the reference in RFC 4601 is to the
Internet Draft that became RFC 5059.

4601bis makes no reference to RFC 5796.  Given that RFC 5796 alters the
preferred IPsec solution (AH is "recommended" in RFC 4601, while RFC
5796 says that implementations "MUST support ESP and MAY support AH"),
and given that RFC 5796 provides considerable detail on the use of IPsec
to protect link-local messages for PIM-SM, RFC 5796 should be
specifically referenced in Section 6.3 of 4601bis.

4601bis makes no reference to RFC 6226.  Given that RFC 6226 alters the
algorithm for determining the Rendezvous Point, RFC 6226 should be
specifically mentioned in Section 3.7 of 4601bis.  The authors should
also consider whether to eliminate Section 4.7.1 and replace it with a
pointer to RFC 6226, to reduce it and add a pointer to RFC 6226, or to
leave it unchanged.

Suggested text for some of these changes has been supplied to the
authors of 4601bis.

  Bill Atwood

-- 
Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
   and Software Engineering
Concordia University EV 3.185     email:[email-masked]
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West    http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:10:25 -0500

Bill,

Thanks for the good review and catches!
I'd like to see the draft updated before March 5 so that it can still
make the telechat on March 12.

Regards,
Alia

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:04 PM, William Atwood <[email-masked]
> wrote:

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

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:35:34 -0800

Hi

> make the telechat on March 12.

I'm not sure it is appropriate to update the document referencing those
more recent standards track document though. We are progressing 4601bis
on the standards track here. Should we as part of that have references
to less mature documents? Those other documents are updating 4601 I
believe which is fine. But that doesn't necessarily mean that 4601bis
should reference them.

Looking for guidance here Alia. My thinking is that 4601bis shouldn't
change anything from 4601, only leave certain things out.

Stig

> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:04 PM, William Atwood
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>      > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> mailing lists by 2015-02-27.
>     Exceptionally, comments may be
>      > sent to [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> instead. In either
>     case, please retain the
>     <tel:%2B1%20%28514%29%20848-2424%20x3046>
>     <tel:%2B1%20%28514%29%20848-2830>
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>