From manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Jul 4 19:06:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDBC9E8005 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:06:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y1XOkdPt9oW5 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424B89E8004 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p65269ju014224 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 4 Jul 2011 21:06:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub01.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.32]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p65268Mu011513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:36:09 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.59]) by INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.32]) with mapi; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:36:08 +0530 From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" To: "pim@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:36:07 +0530 Thread-Topic: In-Band Authentication Extension for PIM Thread-Index: Acw6uBntEkf6jItySU+VJSNlbmPJNA== Message-ID: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350CFEA856A8@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 Cc: "Dacheng Zhang\(Dacheng\)" Subject: [pim] In-Band Authentication Extension for PIM X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 02:06:46 -0000 Hi, Dacheng and I have written a short draft that explains how we can use non I= Psec mechanisms to secure PIM packets. I concede that this document could d= o with some wordsmithing, but we didn't have time and wanted to post the -0= 0 version before the IETF cut-off. Would be great to hear the feedback from the WG: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bhatia-zhang-pim-auth-extension-00.txt Cheers, Manav -- Manav Bhatia, Service Router Product Group (SRPG) Alcatel-Lucent, India= From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Tue Jul 5 09:45:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietf.org Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id A4CF611E80AF; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 09:45:10 -0700 (PDT) From: IESG Secretary To: IETF Announcement list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20110705164510.A4CF611E80AF@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 09:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mmcbride@cisco.com, pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] WG Review: Recharter of Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:45:10 -0000 A modified charter has been submitted for the Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) working group in the Routing Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Tuesday, July 12, 2011. Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) ----------------------------------- Current Status: Active Working Group Last updated: 2011-07-01 Chairs: Mike McBride Stig Venaas Routing Area Directors: Stewart Bryant Adrian Farrel Routing Area Advisor: Adrian Farrel Mailing Lists: General Discussion: pim@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim/ Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/ Description of Working Group The Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Working Group has completed the standardization of PIM with RFC 4601. The WG has determined there is additional work to be accomplished and is chartered to standardize extensions to RFC 4601 - Protocol Independent Multicast Version 2 - Sparse Mode. These PIM extensions will involve reliability, resiliency, scalability, management, and security. If L2VPN or L3VPN WGs determine that support for multicast in L2VPNs and/or L3VPNs requires extensions to PIM, then such extensions will be developed within the PIM WG. Additional work on the PIM-BIDIR and BSR drafts may also be necessary by the WG as these drafts progress through Standards Track. The working group has produced MIB modules for PIM in RFC 5060 and RFC 5240. The working group currently has no plans to do further work on management for PIM. If proposals are brought forward to update or extend the existing MIB modules or to develop YANG modules, the working group will be rechartered. The PIM WG will further enhance RFC4601 as an even more scalable, efficient and robust multicast routing protocol, which is capable of supporting thousands of groups, different types of multicast applications, and all major underlying layer-2 subnetwork technologies. We will accomplish these enhancements by submitting drafts, to the IESG, involving reliable pim, pim join attributes and pim authentication. The working group primarily works on extensions to PIM, but may take on work related to IGMP/MLD. There is a significant number of errata that need to be addressed in order to advance RFC4601 to Draft Standard. The PIM WG will correct the errata, as necessary, and update RFC4601. The working group will initiate a new re-chartering effort if it is determined that a Version 3 of PIM is required. Goals and Milestones: Done Hold the first Working Group meeting and discuss the charter and the state of progress on the chartered items. Done Update the PIM-DM version 2 Internet-draft. Go to WG last call. Submision to IESG for considerations as proposed standard. Done Resubmit the latest PIM-SM version 2 specification to IESG for consideration as a proposed standard RFC Done Submit PIM-SM Applicability Statements Done Submit PIMv2 MIB to IESG for consideration as proposed standard. Done Submit updated PIM-SM and PIM-DM internet-drafts, clarifying any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the previous drafts. Done Submit PIM-SM version 2 and PIM-DM version 2 specifications to IESG for consideration as Draft Standards. Done Submit PIMv2 MIB to IESG for consideration as draft standard. Done Ratify new WG charter and milestones Done Submit the BSR spec as a Proposed Standard to the IESG Done Submit the BSR MIB as a Proposed Standard to the IESG Done Submit a generic TLV PIM Join Attribute PS draft to the IESG Done Submit RPF Vector (use of PIM Join Attribute) as PS to the IESG Done Submit a way to authenticate PIM link local messages as PS to the IESG Done Submit an Informational PIM last hop threats document to the IESG Aug 2011 First WG version of udated RFC 4601 Aug 2011 Submit a more reliable PIM solution (refresh reduction) to the IESG Nov 2011 Submit a population count extension to PIM to the IESG Dec 2011 Submit update of RFC 4601 to IESG for advancement to Draft Standard From stig@venaas.com Tue Jul 5 12:25:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E6921F8A05 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:25:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yEz5bkhrA8ti for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422EF21F89EF for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:4:ea0c:5dbe:7b0b:efac:4f7e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:4:ea0c:5dbe:7b0b:efac:4f7e]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 09144804E for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:25:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E13651A.3050705@venaas.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 12:25:14 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pim] Can you help review mtrace v2? X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:25:22 -0000 Mtrace v2 is now in IETF last call. Please if you got a few minutes, help review the draft? See below for details. This is the last chance to fix it if something is broken... Stig -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Last Call: (Mtrace Version 2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast) to Proposed Standard Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:43:11 -0700 From: The IESG Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce CC: mboned@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the MBONE Deployment WG (mboned) to consider the following document: - 'Mtrace Version 2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast' as a Proposed 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-07-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes the IP multicast traceroute facility. Unlike unicast traceroute, multicast traceroute requires special implementations on the part of routers. This specification describes the required functionality in multicast routers, as well as how management applications can use the router functionality. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From stig@venaas.com Tue Jul 5 12:26:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C306921F8836 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:26:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tKmWMbj7ZQsE for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E91A921F8778 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:4:ea0c:5dbe:7b0b:efac:4f7e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:4:ea0c:5dbe:7b0b:efac:4f7e]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AF73804E; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:26:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E136572.70305@venaas.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 12:26:42 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@ietf.org References: <4E04FACF.2030202@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <4E04FACF.2030202@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Mike McBride \(mmcbride\)" Subject: Re: [pim] Submission deadlines and agenda items X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:26:52 -0000 Please let Mike and I know if you have anything you would like to present in Quebec. I know that some of you do. Please let us know title/draft, how much time and who will present. Stig From adrian@olddog.co.uk Tue Jul 5 17:43:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD7221F8898 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:43:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QON0wqyOpoBN for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7024521F8895 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p660hnGr012141 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:43:50 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p660hmOU012131 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:43:49 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <20110705164510.A4CF611E80AF@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20110705164510.A4CF611E80AF@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:43:48 +0100 Message-ID: <05b401cc3b75$c5627c00$50277400$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQD8YDN2C/iL1uu7FYFFxA4toPfWrZZ+KYFA Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [pim] FW: WG Review: Recharter of Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:43:52 -0000 Hi PIM WG, There are three minor mods to your charter that I have proposed after = discussions with the IESG. Please have a look and comment if you have = any issues: 1. VPN reference OLD The PIM WG will consider implications of VPN service on PIM when it's = a component of that service or when PIM interfaces with that service at = a VPN edge. If L2VPN or L3VPN WGs determine that support for multicast = in L2VPNs and/or L3VPNs requires extensions to PIM, then such extensions could be developed within the PIM WG. NEW If L2VPN or L3VPN WGs determine that support for multicast in L2VPNs and/or L3VPNs requires extensions to PIM, then such extensions will be developed within the PIM WG. REASON There is no VPN work obvious in the pipe. There are no milestones for VPN work. Such work, if it shows up, really should be done in PIM 2. Management work OLD The working group will continue to specify the MIB modules required = for PIM and its enhancements. NEW The working group has produced MIB modules for PIM in RFC 5060 and RFC 5240. The working group currently has no plans to do further work on management for PIM. If proposals are brought forward to update or extend the existing MIB modules or to develop YANG modules, the = working group will be rechartered. REASON There appears to be no plan to do any further management work. There are no I-Ds or milestones. If someone wants to do further management work they will be welcomed. 3. Milestones All four active milestones are new. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of IESG > Secretary > Sent: 05 July 2011 17:45 > To: IETF Announcement list > Cc: stig@venaas.com; mmcbride@cisco.com; pim@ietf.org > Subject: WG Review: Recharter of Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) >=20 > A modified charter has been submitted for the Protocol Independent > Multicast (pim) working group in the Routing Area of the IETF. The = IESG > has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter is = provided > below for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to = the > IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Tuesday, July 12, 2011. >=20 > Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) > ----------------------------------- > Current Status: Active Working Group > Last updated: 2011-07-01 >=20 > Chairs: > Mike McBride > Stig Venaas >=20 > Routing Area Directors: > Stewart Bryant > Adrian Farrel >=20 > Routing Area Advisor: > Adrian Farrel >=20 > Mailing Lists: > General Discussion: pim@ietf.org > To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim/ > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/ >=20 > Description of Working Group >=20 > The Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Working Group has completed > the standardization of PIM with RFC 4601. The WG has determined there > is additional work to be accomplished and is chartered to standardize > extensions to RFC 4601 - Protocol Independent Multicast Version 2 - > Sparse Mode. These PIM extensions will involve reliability, = resiliency, > scalability, management, and security. >=20 > If L2VPN or L3VPN WGs determine that support for multicast in L2VPNs > and/or L3VPNs requires extensions to PIM, then such extensions will be > developed within the PIM WG. >=20 > Additional work on the PIM-BIDIR and BSR drafts may also be necessary > by the WG as these drafts progress through Standards Track. >=20 > The working group has produced MIB modules for PIM in RFC 5060 and > RFC 5240. The working group currently has no plans to do further work > on management for PIM. If proposals are brought forward to update or > extend the existing MIB modules or to develop YANG modules, the = working > group will be rechartered. >=20 > The PIM WG will further enhance RFC4601 as an even more scalable, > efficient and robust multicast routing protocol, which is capable of > supporting thousands of groups, different types of multicast > applications, and all major underlying layer-2 subnetwork = technologies. > We will accomplish these enhancements by submitting drafts, to the > IESG, involving reliable pim, pim join attributes and pim > authentication. >=20 > The working group primarily works on extensions to PIM, but may take = on > work related to IGMP/MLD. >=20 > There is a significant number of errata that need to be addressed in > order to advance RFC4601 to Draft Standard. The PIM WG will correct = the > errata, as necessary, and update RFC4601. >=20 > The working group will initiate a new re-chartering effort if it is > determined that a Version 3 of PIM is required. >=20 > Goals and Milestones: >=20 > Done Hold the first Working Group meeting and discuss the charter > and the state of progress on the chartered items. > Done Update the PIM-DM version 2 Internet-draft. Go to WG last > call. Submision to IESG for considerations as proposed > standard. > Done Resubmit the latest PIM-SM version 2 specification to IESG = for > consideration as a proposed standard RFC > Done Submit PIM-SM Applicability Statements > Done Submit PIMv2 MIB to IESG for consideration as proposed > standard. > Done Submit updated PIM-SM and PIM-DM internet-drafts, clarifying > any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the previous drafts. > Done Submit PIM-SM version 2 and PIM-DM version 2 specifications = to > IESG for consideration as Draft Standards. > Done Submit PIMv2 MIB to IESG for consideration as draft = standard. > Done Ratify new WG charter and milestones > Done Submit the BSR spec as a Proposed Standard to the IESG > Done Submit the BSR MIB as a Proposed Standard to the IESG > Done Submit a generic TLV PIM Join Attribute PS draft to the IESG > Done Submit RPF Vector (use of PIM Join Attribute) as PS to the > IESG > Done Submit a way to authenticate PIM link local messages as PS = to > the IESG > Done Submit an Informational PIM last hop threats document to the > IESG > Aug 2011 First WG version of udated RFC 4601 > Aug 2011 Submit a more reliable PIM solution (refresh reduction) to = the > IESG > Nov 2011 Submit a population count extension to PIM to the IESG > Dec 2011 Submit update of RFC 4601 to IESG for advancement to Draft > Standard From jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Tue Jul 5 21:18:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A26821F87E2 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:18:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ovnplshk30cX for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E11B21F87C8 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p664Ii6D017902; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:18:46 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.59]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 00:18:43 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 00:20:13 -0400 Thread-Topic: [pim] FW: WG Review: Recharter of Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) Thread-Index: Acw7k8pQ15GHRZ58RUS1X7kOHiT4OA== Message-ID: <3CE94DA8-39D5-4FEC-8AD6-F2EEF1079ACC@ericsson.com> References: <20110705164510.A4CF611E80AF@ietfa.amsl.com> <05b401cc3b75$c5627c00$50277400$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <05b401cc3b75$c5627c00$50277400$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] FW: WG Review: Recharter of Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 04:18:47 -0000 Hi Adrian, Sounds reasonable to me. Regards, Jeff On Jul 5, 2011, at 5:43 PM, "Adrian Farrel" wrote: > Hi PIM WG, >=20 > There are three minor mods to your charter that I have proposed after dis= cussions with the IESG. Please have a look and comment if you have any issu= es: >=20 > 1. VPN reference > OLD > The PIM WG will consider implications of VPN service on PIM when it's a > component of that service or when PIM interfaces with that service at a > VPN edge. If L2VPN or L3VPN WGs determine that support for multicast in > L2VPNs and/or L3VPNs requires extensions to PIM, then such extensions > could be developed within the PIM WG. > NEW > If L2VPN or L3VPN WGs determine that support for multicast in L2VPNs > and/or L3VPNs requires extensions to PIM, then such extensions will be > developed within the PIM WG. > REASON > There is no VPN work obvious in the pipe. > There are no milestones for VPN work. > Such work, if it shows up, really should be done in PIM >=20 > 2. Management work > OLD > The working group will continue to specify the MIB modules required for > PIM and its enhancements. > NEW > The working group has produced MIB modules for PIM in RFC 5060 and > RFC 5240. The working group currently has no plans to do further work > on management for PIM. If proposals are brought forward to update or > extend the existing MIB modules or to develop YANG modules, the working > group will be rechartered. > REASON > There appears to be no plan to do any further management work. > There are no I-Ds or milestones. > If someone wants to do further management work they will be welcomed. >=20 > 3. Milestones > All four active milestones are new. >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = IESG >> Secretary >> Sent: 05 July 2011 17:45 >> To: IETF Announcement list >> Cc: stig@venaas.com; mmcbride@cisco.com; pim@ietf.org >> Subject: WG Review: Recharter of Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) >>=20 >> A modified charter has been submitted for the Protocol Independent >> Multicast (pim) working group in the Routing Area of the IETF. The IESG >> has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided >> below for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the >> IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Tuesday, July 12, 2011. >>=20 >> Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) >> ----------------------------------- >> Current Status: Active Working Group >> Last updated: 2011-07-01 >>=20 >> Chairs: >> Mike McBride >> Stig Venaas >>=20 >> Routing Area Directors: >> Stewart Bryant >> Adrian Farrel >>=20 >> Routing Area Advisor: >> Adrian Farrel >>=20 >> Mailing Lists: >> General Discussion: pim@ietf.org >> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim/ >> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/ >>=20 >> Description of Working Group >>=20 >> The Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Working Group has completed >> the standardization of PIM with RFC 4601. The WG has determined there >> is additional work to be accomplished and is chartered to standardize >> extensions to RFC 4601 - Protocol Independent Multicast Version 2 - >> Sparse Mode. These PIM extensions will involve reliability, resiliency, >> scalability, management, and security. >>=20 >> If L2VPN or L3VPN WGs determine that support for multicast in L2VPNs >> and/or L3VPNs requires extensions to PIM, then such extensions will be >> developed within the PIM WG. >>=20 >> Additional work on the PIM-BIDIR and BSR drafts may also be necessary >> by the WG as these drafts progress through Standards Track. >>=20 >> The working group has produced MIB modules for PIM in RFC 5060 and >> RFC 5240. The working group currently has no plans to do further work >> on management for PIM. If proposals are brought forward to update or >> extend the existing MIB modules or to develop YANG modules, the working >> group will be rechartered. >>=20 >> The PIM WG will further enhance RFC4601 as an even more scalable, >> efficient and robust multicast routing protocol, which is capable of >> supporting thousands of groups, different types of multicast >> applications, and all major underlying layer-2 subnetwork technologies. >> We will accomplish these enhancements by submitting drafts, to the >> IESG, involving reliable pim, pim join attributes and pim >> authentication. >>=20 >> The working group primarily works on extensions to PIM, but may take on >> work related to IGMP/MLD. >>=20 >> There is a significant number of errata that need to be addressed in >> order to advance RFC4601 to Draft Standard. The PIM WG will correct the >> errata, as necessary, and update RFC4601. >>=20 >> The working group will initiate a new re-chartering effort if it is >> determined that a Version 3 of PIM is required. >>=20 >> Goals and Milestones: >>=20 >> Done Hold the first Working Group meeting and discuss the charter >> and the state of progress on the chartered items. >> Done Update the PIM-DM version 2 Internet-draft. Go to WG last >> call. Submision to IESG for considerations as proposed >> standard. >> Done Resubmit the latest PIM-SM version 2 specification to IESG for >> consideration as a proposed standard RFC >> Done Submit PIM-SM Applicability Statements >> Done Submit PIMv2 MIB to IESG for consideration as proposed >> standard. >> Done Submit updated PIM-SM and PIM-DM internet-drafts, clarifying >> any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the previous drafts. >> Done Submit PIM-SM version 2 and PIM-DM version 2 specifications to >> IESG for consideration as Draft Standards. >> Done Submit PIMv2 MIB to IESG for consideration as draft standard. >> Done Ratify new WG charter and milestones >> Done Submit the BSR spec as a Proposed Standard to the IESG >> Done Submit the BSR MIB as a Proposed Standard to the IESG >> Done Submit a generic TLV PIM Join Attribute PS draft to the IESG >> Done Submit RPF Vector (use of PIM Join Attribute) as PS to the >> IESG >> Done Submit a way to authenticate PIM link local messages as PS to >> the IESG >> Done Submit an Informational PIM last hop threats document to the >> IESG >> Aug 2011 First WG version of udated RFC 4601 >> Aug 2011 Submit a more reliable PIM solution (refresh reduction) to the >> IESG >> Nov 2011 Submit a population count extension to PIM to the IESG >> Dec 2011 Submit update of RFC 4601 to IESG for advancement to Draft >> Standard >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jul 6 12:11:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5647121F8561; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:11:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FfJv3OduHtB1; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE4F21F8ACD; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:11:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110706191104.18079.61464.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:11:04 -0700 Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-04.txt X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 19:11:08 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Protocol Independent Multicast Workin= g Group of the IETF. Title : Population Count Extensions to PIM Author(s) : Dino Farinacci Greg Shepherd Yiqun Cai Stig Venaas Filename : draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-04.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2011-07-06 This specification defines a method for providing multicast distribution-tree accounting data. Simple extensions to the PIM protocol allow a rough approximation of tree-based data in a scalable fashion. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-04.txt From stig@venaas.com Thu Jul 14 11:33:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEC521F85A0 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:33:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tRRWl8OjryGb for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4CE21F858E for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.107.114.65] (dhcp-128-107-114-65.cisco.com [128.107.114.65]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00ACB803C for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:33:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E1F366F.1050603@venaas.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:33:19 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pim] Draft agenda for IETF 81 pim wg X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:33:25 -0000 The draft agenda so far is below. Please let Mike and I know ASAP if you have any additions/corrections. Stig Meeting slot: Tuesday 1300-15000 Agenda bashing, document status Mike/Stig 15 min pop-count Stig 5 min 4601 update Jeffrey Zhang 15 min draft-hou-pim-ecmp-01 ? 15 min draft-bhatia-zhang-pim-auth-extension-00.txt Dacheng Zhang 15 min draft-brigm-deterministicrp-00 Michael Brig 15 min From stig@venaas.com Fri Jul 15 10:08:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193EA21F8A7D for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:08:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sR-l1ER09MKf for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F81D21F8A56 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.33.12.79] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07205802B; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:08:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E2073F8.5020309@venaas.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:08:08 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ronald Bonica Subject: [pim] pim wg last call of draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08 X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:08:18 -0000 mboned has submitted the draft draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08 for publication. It is currently with the IESG. It has passed mboned wg last call, but the AD for mboned and this draft, has asked for us to also do a pim wg last call. Please if you can, have a look at this by Friday July 22nd, and provide your feedback. Both positive and negative feedback would be welcome. URL for your convenience: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08 Stig From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sat Jul 16 13:48:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28DD921F88A5 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:48:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.623 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.883, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QuDiLmv0WIv4 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686F621F88A1 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6GKmD01010842 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:48:14 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6GKmCSC010836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:48:13 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:48:12 +0100 Message-ID: <04ad01cc43f9$ae645370$0b2cfa50$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AcxD+X67Y8JrdxUDSyKS1L6Qiv6DAw== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [pim] Multicast IP Fast Re-route X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 20:48:16 -0000 Hi PIM WG, Please be aware of http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-karan-mofrr/ that is currently targeted at RTGWG where most of the IP-FRR work has gone on. Your mcast experience will be helpful. Thanks, Adrian From bharat_joshi@infosys.com Sun Jul 17 23:13:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0269C21F8AD6 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 23:13:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v1fP3zjMeVQj for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 23:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KECGATE08.infosys.com (kecgate08.infosysconsulting.com [122.98.10.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A742221F8AD3 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 23:12:58 -0700 (PDT) X-TM-IMSS-Message-ID: Received: from blrkechub04.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.44]) by infosys.com ([122.98.10.33]) with ESMTP (TREND IMSS SMTP Service 7.1) id ce4cf0cb00137297 ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:48:35 +0530 Received: from BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.22]) by blrkechub04.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.44]) with mapi; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:42:52 +0530 From: Bharat Joshi To: Stig Venaas , "pim@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:41:47 +0530 Thread-Topic: [pim] pim wg last call of draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08 Thread-Index: AcxDEc+RArhj+p8NSAyHrThJP5QNqAB/8N3G Message-ID: <31D55C4D55BEED48A4459EB64567589A1183865F56@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com> References: <4E2073F8.5020309@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2073F8.5020309@venaas.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Ronald Bonica Subject: Re: [pim] pim wg last call of draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08 X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 06:13:00 -0000 Hi=20All, =20=20=20=20=20=20I=20have=20reviewed=20this=20draft=20multiple=20times= =20and=20I=20think=20it=20is=20in=20good=20shape=20for=20publication. Regards, Bharat ________________________________________ From:=20pim-bounces@ietf.org=20[pim-bounces@ietf.org]=20On=20Behalf=20Of= =20Stig=20Venaas=20[stig@venaas.com] Sent:=20Friday,=20July=2015,=202011=2010:38=20PM To:=20pim@ietf.org Cc:=20Ronald=20Bonica Subject:=20[pim]=20pim=20wg=20last=20call=20of=20draft-ietf-mboned-ssmpin= g-08 mboned=20has=20submitted=20the=20draft=20draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08=20f= or publication.=20It=20is=20currently=20with=20the=20IESG. It=20has=20passed=20mboned=20wg=20last=20call,=20but=20the=20AD=20for=20m= boned=20and=20this draft,=20has=20asked=20for=20us=20to=20also=20do=20a=20pim=20wg=20last=20= call. Please=20if=20you=20can,=20have=20a=20look=20at=20this=20by=20Friday=20Ju= ly=2022nd, and=20provide=20your=20feedback.=20Both=20positive=20and=20negative=20fee= dback would=20be=20welcome. URL=20for=20your=20convenience: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08 Stig _______________________________________________ pim=20mailing=20list pim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim ****************=20CAUTION=20-=20Disclaimer=20***************** This=20e-mail=20contains=20PRIVILEGED=20AND=20CONFIDENTIAL=20INFORMATION= =20intended=20solely=20 for=20the=20use=20of=20the=20addressee(s).=20If=20you=20are=20not=20the= =20intended=20recipient,=20please=20 notify=20the=20sender=20by=20e-mail=20and=20delete=20the=20original=20mes= sage.=20Further,=20you=20are=20not=20 to=20copy,=20disclose,=20or=20distribute=20this=20e-mail=20or=20its=20con= tents=20to=20any=20other=20person=20and=20 any=20such=20actions=20are=20unlawful.=20This=20e-mail=20may=20contain=20= viruses.=20Infosys=20has=20taken=20 every=20reasonable=20precaution=20to=20minimize=20this=20risk,=20but=20is= =20not=20liable=20for=20any=20damage=20 you=20may=20sustain=20as=20a=20result=20of=20any=20virus=20in=20this=20e-= mail.=20You=20should=20carry=20out=20your=20 own=20virus=20checks=20before=20opening=20the=20e-mail=20or=20attachment.= =20Infosys=20reserves=20the=20 right=20to=20monitor=20and=20review=20the=20content=20of=20all=20messages= =20sent=20to=20or=20from=20this=20e-mail=20 address.=20Messages=20sent=20to=20or=20from=20this=20e-mail=20address=20m= ay=20be=20stored=20on=20the=20 Infosys=20e-mail=20system. ***INFOSYS********=20End=20of=20Disclaimer=20********INFOSYS*** From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Tue Jul 19 09:35:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietf.org Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 476551F0C3B; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:35:21 -0700 (PDT) From: IESG Secretary To: IETF Announcement list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20110719163521.476551F0C3B@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mmcbride@cisco.com, pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] WG Action: RECHARTER: Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:35:21 -0000 The Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) working group in the Routing Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information, please contact the Area Directors or the working group Chairs. Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) ----------------------------------- Current Status: Active Working Group Chairs: Mike McBride Stig Venaas Routing Area Directors: Stewart Bryant Adrian Farrel Routing Area Advisor: Adrian Farrel Mailing Lists: General Discussion: pim@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim/ Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/ Description of Working Group The Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Working Group has completed the standardization of PIM with RFC 4601. The WG has determined there is additional work to be accomplished and is chartered to standardize extensions to RFC 4601 - Protocol Independent Multicast Version 2 - Sparse Mode. These PIM extensions will involve reliability, resiliency, scalability, management, and security. If L2VPN or L3VPN WGs determine that support for multicast in L2VPNs and/or L3VPNs requires extensions to PIM, then such extensions will be developed within the PIM WG. Additional work on the PIM-BIDIR and BSR drafts may also be necessary by the WG as these drafts progress through Standards Track. The working group has produced MIB modules for PIM in RFC 5060 and RFC 5240. The working group currently has no plans to do further work on management for PIM. If proposals are brought forward to update or extend the existing MIB modules or to develop YANG modules, the working group will be rechartered. The PIM WG will further enhance RFC4601 as an even more scalable, efficient and robust multicast routing protocol, which is capable of supporting thousands of groups, different types of multicast applications, and all major underlying layer-2 subnetwork technologies. We will accomplish these enhancements by submitting drafts, to the IESG, involving reliable pim, pim join attributes and pim authentication. The working group primarily works on extensions to PIM, but may take on work related to IGMP/MLD. There is a significant number of errata that need to be addressed in order to advance RFC4601 to Draft Standard. The PIM WG will correct the errata, as necessary, and update RFC4601. The working group will initiate a new re-chartering effort if it is determined that a Version 3 of PIM is required. Goals and Milestones: Done Hold the first Working Group meeting and discuss the charter and the state of progress on the chartered items. Done Update the PIM-DM version 2 Internet-draft. Go to WG last call. Submission to IESG for considerations as proposed standard. Done Resubmit the latest PIM-SM version 2 specification to IESG for consideration as a proposed standard RFC Done Submit PIM-SM Applicability Statements Done Submit PIMv2 MIB to IESG for consideration as proposed standard. Done Submit updated PIM-SM and PIM-DM internet-drafts, clarifying any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the previous drafts. Done Submit PIM-SM version 2 and PIM-DM version 2 specifications to IESG for consideration as Draft Standards. Done Submit PIMv2 MIB to IESG for consideration as draft standard. Done Ratify new WG charter and milestones Done Submit the BSR spec as a Proposed Standard to the IESG Done Submit the BSR MIB as a Proposed Standard to the IESG Done Submit a generic TLV PIM Join Attribute PS draft to the IESG Done Submit RPF Vector (use of PIM Join Attribute) as PS to the IESG Done Submit a way to authenticate PIM link local messages as PS to the IESG Done Submit an Informational PIM last hop threats document to the IESG Aug 2011 First WG version of udated RFC 4601 Aug 2011 Submit a more reliable PIM solution (refresh reduction) to the IESG Nov 2011 Submit a population count extension to PIM to the IESG Dec 2011 Submit update of RFC 4601 to IESG for advancement to Draft Standard From Sundara.Moorthy@aricent.com Wed Jul 20 02:23:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C9D21F88A1 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:23:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49DkOsDIpUIU for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jaguar.aricent.com (jaguar.aricent.com [180.151.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583F821F888A for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jaguar.aricent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3A536BD6; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:48:34 +0530 (IST) Received: from GUREXHT02.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM (gurexht02.asian.ad.aricent.com [10.203.171.138]) by jaguar.aricent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E52436BE0; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:48:34 +0530 (IST) Received: from GUREXMB02.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM ([10.203.171.132]) by GUREXHT02.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM ([10.203.171.138]) with mapi; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:53:28 +0530 From: Sundara Moorthy M To: "M.Handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk" , "kouvelas@cisco.com" , "speakman@cisco.com" , "lorenzo@digitalfountain.com" Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:53:25 +0530 Thread-Topic: Bidir-PIM DF state transitions - events are not clear to understand the scenario and situation Thread-Index: AcxGvqzMNqe/c8XpQnWcX5NvsA95FA== Message-ID: <34AB0AF86DBB71498AE06389F3116EDA01A0CA466B@GUREXMB02.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_34AB0AF86DBB71498AE06389F3116EDA01A0CA466BGUREXMB02ASIA_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pim@ietf.org" Subject: [pim] Bidir-PIM DF state transitions - events are not clear to understand the scenario and situation X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:23:35 -0000 --_000_34AB0AF86DBB71498AE06389F3116EDA01A0CA466BGUREXMB02ASIA_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Authors, I am going through the RFC 5015 for BIDIR-PIM implementation. DF election state machine mentioned in the table (Figure 3: Designated Forw= arder election state machine in tabular form) is not clear. There is so many terms/terminologies used in the above said table, which ar= e not clarified anywhere in the section:3.5.3 and also in section:3.5.2. Pl= ease find my queries below: You have mentioned around 11 events. But I don't understand the meaning and= the difference between the below mentioned events. 1. Recv better PASS/WIN 2. Recv PASS for us 3. Recv better BACK-OFF 4. Recv better BACK OFF for us 5. Recv worse PASS/WIN/BACK-OFF How does the event 1 and event 2 differ from each other? How does the event 3 and event 4 differ from each other? When does the event 2 and event 4 occur(Highlighted in Blue in below table)= ?? In the below table, for the "Prev State: Lose" and the "event: Recv Better = Offer", why is that state change required there(Highlighted in RED)? Since the "Prev State: Lose" and the better offer event is received, it doe= sn't need to change the state and anyway its going to be in Lose state. +-------------+------------------------------------------------------+ | | Event | | Prev State +-----------------+------------------+-----------------+ | | Recv better | Recv better | Recv better | | | Pass / Win | Backoff | Offer | +-------------+-----------------+------------------+-----------------+ | | -> Lose | - | - | | Offer | DF =3D Sender or | DFT =3D BOperiod | DFT =3D OPhigh; = | | | Target; Stop | + OPlow; MC =3D | MC =3D 0 | | | DFT | 0 | | +-------------+-----------------+------------------+-----------------+ | | - | - | -> Offer | | Lose | DF =3D Sender or | DF =3D Sender | DFT =3D OPhigh; = | | | Target | | MC =3D 0 | +-------------+-----------------+------------------+-----------------+ | | -> Lose | -> Lose | -> Backoff | | | DF =3D Sender or | DF =3D Sender; | Set Best to | | Win | Target; Stop | Stop DFT | Sender; Send | | | DFT | | Backoff; DFT =3D | | | | | BOperiod | +-------------+-----------------+------------------+-----------------+ | | -> Lose | -> Lose | - | | | DF =3D Sender or | DF =3D Sender; | Set Best to | | Backoff | Target; Stop | Stop DFT | Sender; Send | | | DFT | | Backoff; DFT =3D | | | | | BOperiod | +-------------+-----------------+------------------+-----------------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+ | | Event | | +-------------+-------------+--------------+------------+ |Prev State |Recv Backoff |Recv Pass |Recv Worse |Recv worse | | |for us |for us |Pass / Win / |Offer | | | | |Backoff | | +-----------+-------------+-------------+--------------+------------+ | |- |-> Win |- |- | | |DFT =3D |Stop DFT |Set DF to |DFT ?=3D | |Offer |BOperiod + | |Sender or |OPlow; MC =3D | | |OPlow; MC =3D | |Target; DFT |0 | | |0 | |?=3D OPlow; MC | | | | | |=3D 0 | | +-----------+-------------+-------------+--------------+------------+ | |-> Offer |-> Offer |-> Offer |-> Offer | | |DF =3D Sender; |DF =3D Sender; |DF =3D Sender |DFT =3D OPlow= ;| |Lose |DFT =3D OPlow; |DFT =3D OPlow; |or Target; |MC =3D 0 | | |MC =3D 0 |MC =3D 0 |DFT =3D OPlow; | | | | | |MC =3D 0 | | +-----------+-------------+-------------+--------------+------------+ | |-> Offer |-> Offer |-> Offer |- | | |DF =3D Sender; |DF =3D Sender; |DF =3D Sender |Send Winner | |Win |DFT =3D OPlow; |DFT =3D OPlow; |or Target; | | | |MC =3D 0 |MC =3D 0 |DFT =3D OPlow; | | | | | |MC =3D 0 | | +-----------+-------------+-------------+--------------+------------+ | |-> Offer |-> Offer |-> Offer |-> Win | | |DF =3D Sender; |DF =3D Sender; |DF =3D Sender |Send Winner;| |Backoff |DFT =3D OPlow; |DFT =3D OPlow; |or Target; |Stop DFT | | |MC =3D 0 |MC =3D 0 |DFT =3D OPlow; | | | | |MC =3D 0 | | | +-----------+-------------+-------------+--------------+------------+ Thanks and Regards, Sundara Moorthy M =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D --_000_34AB0AF86DBB71498AE06389F3116EDA01A0CA466BGUREXMB02ASIA_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Hi Authors,
 
I am going through the RFC 5015 for BIDIR-PIM implementation.
 
DF election state machine mentioned in the table (Figure 3: Designated= Forwarder election state machine in tabular form)
is not clear.
 
There is so many terms/terminologies used in the above said table, whi= ch are not clarified anywhere in the section:3.5.3 and also in section:3.5.= 2. Please find my queries below:
 
 
You have mentioned around 11 events. But I don't understand the meanin= g and the difference between the below mentioned events.
 
1. Recv better PASS/WIN
2. Recv PASS for us    
3. Recv better BACK-OFF
4. Recv better BACK OFF for us
5. Recv worse PASS/WIN/BACK-OFF
 
 
How does the event 1 and event 2 differ from each other?
 
How does the event 3 and event 4 differ from each other?
 
When does the event 2 and event 4 occur(Highli= ghted in Blue in below table)??
 
 
In the below table, for the "Prev State: Lose" and the "= ;event: Recv Better Offer", why is that state change required there(Highlighted in RED)?
Since the "Prev State: Lose" and the better offer event is r= eceived, it doesn't need to change the state and anyway its going to be in = Lose state.
 
+-------------+--= ----------------------------------------------------+
|    =          |    &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Event         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;       |
| Prev State  +-= ----------------+------------------+-----------------+
|    =          | Recv better  &= nbsp;  | Recv better      | Recv better     |
|    =          | Pass / Win  &n= bsp;   | Backoff        &= nbsp; | Offer           |=
+-------------+--= ---------------+------------------+-----------------+
|    =          | -> Lose  &n= bsp;      | -      &= nbsp;         | -   =             |=
| Offer   =     | DF =3D Sender or  | DFT =3D BOperiod   = | DFT =3D OPhigh;   |
|    =          | Target; Stop  =   | + OPlow; MC =3D    | MC =3D 0   =        |
|    =          | DFT   &nb= sp;         | 0   &n= bsp;            |&nb= sp;            =     |
+-------------+--= ---------------+------------------+-----------------+
|    =          | -    = ;           | - &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; | -> Offer     &n= bsp;  |
| Lose        | DF =3D Sender or&n= bsp; | DF =3D Sender      | DFT =3D OPhigh; &= nbsp; |
|    =          | Target   =        |      &= nbsp;           | MC =3D = 0          |
+-------------+--= ---------------+------------------+-----------------+
|    =          | -> Lose  &n= bsp;      | -> Lose    &nbs= p;     | -> Backoff      |<= /font>
|    =          | DF =3D Sender or  |= DF =3D Sender;     | Set Best to   &nbs= p; |
| Win   &n= bsp;     | Target; Stop    | Stop DFT&nb= sp;        | Sender; Send  &nb= sp; |
|    =          | DFT   &nb= sp;         |   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; | Backoff; DFT =3D  |
|    =          |    &= nbsp;            |&n= bsp;            = ;     | BOperiod      &nb= sp; |
+-------------+--= ---------------+------------------+-----------------+
|    =          | -> Lose  &n= bsp;      | -> Lose    &nbs= p;     | -       &nb= sp;       |
|    =          | DF =3D Sender or  |= DF =3D Sender;     | Set Best to   &nbs= p; |
| Backoff  &nbs= p;  | Target; Stop    | Stop DFT    = ;     | Sender; Send    |
|    =          | DFT   &nb= sp;         |   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; | Backoff; DFT =3D  |
|    =          |    &= nbsp;            |&n= bsp;            = ;     | BOperiod      &nb= sp; |
+-------------+--= ---------------+------------------+-----------------+
 
 
 
 
+-----------+----= ---------------------------------------------------+
|    =        | Event     &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;      |
|    =        +-------------+-------------&#= 43;--------------+------------+
|Prev State |Recv Backoff |Recv Pass &n= bsp;  |Recv Worse    |Recv worse  |<= /div>
|    =        |for us &= nbsp;     |for us &= nbsp;     |Pass / Win /  |Offer  =      |
|    =        |      &= nbsp;      |      &n= bsp;      |Backoff     &n= bsp; |            |<= /font>
+-----------+----= ---------+-------------+--------------+------------+=
|    =        |-      =       |-> Win     &nbs= p; |-           &nbs= p; |-           |<= /div>
|    =        |DFT =3D     =    |Stop DFT     |Set DF to   =   |DFT ?=3D      |
|Offer   &= nbsp;  |BOperiod +   |     &nbs= p;       |Sender or     |= OPlow; MC =3D |
|    =        |OPlow; MC =3D  |  &nbs= p;          |Target; DFT =   |0           |
|    =        |0      =       |       &= nbsp;     |?=3D OPlow; MC  |   &nbs= p;        |
|    =        |      &= nbsp;      |      &n= bsp;      |=3D 0     &nbs= p;     |        = ;    |
+-----------+----= ---------+-------------+--------------+------------+=
|    =        |-> Offer     |= -> Offer     |-> Offer    &nb= sp; |-> Offer    |
|    =        |DF =3D Sender; |DF =3D Sender; |DF = =3D Sender   |DFT =3D OPlow;|
|Lose   &n= bsp;   |DFT =3D OPlow; |DFT =3D OPlow; |or Target;  &nb= sp; |MC =3D 0      |
|    =        |MC =3D 0     = ;  |MC =3D 0       |DFT =3D OPlow; = |            |
|    =        |      &= nbsp;      |      &n= bsp;      |MC =3D 0     &= nbsp;  |          &n= bsp; |
+-----------+----= ---------+-------------+--------------+------------+=
|    =        |-> Offer     |= -> Offer     |-> Offer    &nb= sp; |-           |=
|    =        |DF =3D Sender; |DF =3D Sender; |DF = =3D Sender   |Send Winner |
|Win   &nb= sp;    |DFT =3D OPlow; |DFT =3D OPlow; |or Target; &nbs= p;  |           = ; |
|    =        |MC =3D 0     = ;  |MC =3D 0       |DFT =3D OPlow; = |            |
|    =        |      &= nbsp;      |      &n= bsp;      |MC =3D 0     &= nbsp;  |          &n= bsp; |
+-----------+----= ---------+-------------+--------------+------------+=
|    =        |-> Offer     |= -> Offer     |-> Offer    &nb= sp; |-> Win      |
|    =        |DF =3D Sender; |DF =3D Sender; |DF = =3D Sender   |Send Winner;|
|Backoff   = ; |DFT =3D OPlow; |DFT =3D OPlow; |or Target;    |Stop DFT&n= bsp;   |
|    =        |MC =3D 0     = ;  |MC =3D 0       |DFT =3D OPlow; = |            |
|    =        |      &= nbsp;      |MC =3D 0     =   |           &= nbsp;  |          &n= bsp; |
+-----------+----= ---------+-------------+--------------+------------+=
 
 
 
Thanks and Regards,=
 Sundara Moorthy M
 

=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
Please= refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
for im= portant disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D
 --_000_34AB0AF86DBB71498AE06389F3116EDA01A0CA466BGUREXMB02ASIA_-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Sat Jul 23 05:37:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5658921F886A; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 05:37:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fTXwQH40gpCI; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC59221F8760; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110723123757.20174.70588.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 05:37:57 -0700 Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] Last Call: (An Interface ID Hello Option for PIM) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:37:58 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast WG (pim) to consider the following document: - 'An Interface ID Hello Option for PIM' as a Proposed 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-08-12. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines a new PIM Hello option to advertise an interface identifier that can be used by PIM protocols to uniquely identify an interface of a neighboring router. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From mmcbride@cisco.com Tue Jul 26 07:12:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FCF121F8CB4 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:12:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RVvHHB2VYzIz for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFA821F8CBA for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:12:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mmcbride@cisco.com; l=1495; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311689532; x=1312899132; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=s16QykebGVXlWX6/dirENswdd1cGUmAMSrSYuoOUrUk=; b=SD94UhXAAqyPHU87sfU1DM8icnrFAJ7SC2r9dZxC4vqSSWAJ4V1D4jki W3BDNhB2euCN9N7buLiv4rjqvo+MgOe1L45+H0MaYYTg70Eei9JOTCD8+ Fa1jjmIo+9lJHeRGg8rMMXHvFJaEPU2dKea7NLH4OpWpnzbCxjBgGZKMm w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Au4AAJTKLk6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbAA1AQEBAQMBAQERASEKOhcFAgEJEQQBAQsGIwEGARMYIw4IAQEFARYMG5dcj1p3iQCjDZ5jhWFfBIdXkCuLcA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,269,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="6498761" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2011 14:12:10 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6QECA6I005727; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:12:10 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21d.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.140]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:12:09 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:11:46 -0700 Message-ID: In-reply-to: <4E1F366F.1050603@venaas.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [pim] Draft agenda for IETF 81 pim wg Thread-Index: AcxCVMKiq/3ssw9nS3qW0+i81Uzy0wJSDkkA References: <4E1F366F.1050603@venaas.com> From: "Mike McBride (mmcbride)" To: "Stig Venaas" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2011 14:12:09.0929 (UTC) FILETIME=[021D4390:01CC4B9E] Subject: Re: [pim] Draft agenda for IETF 81 pim wg X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:12:13 -0000 Here is the updated agenda: Agenda bashing, document status Mike/Stig 15 min draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-04 Stig 5 min 4601 update Jeffrey Zhang 15 min draft-hou-pim-ecmp-01 Heidi Ou 15 min draft-bhatia-zhang-pim-auth-extension-00 Dacheng Zhang 15 min draft-brigm-deterministicrp-00 Michael Brig 15 min draft-wijnands-pim-neighbor-reduction-02 Ice Wijnands 15 min See you at 1pm. mike > -----Original Message----- > From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Stig Venaas > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:33 AM > To: pim@ietf.org > Subject: [pim] Draft agenda for IETF 81 pim wg >=20 > The draft agenda so far is below. Please let Mike and I know ASAP if > you have any additions/corrections. >=20 > Stig >=20 > Meeting slot: Tuesday 1300-15000 >=20 > Agenda bashing, document status Mike/Stig 15 min > pop-count Stig 5 min > 4601 update Jeffrey Zhang 15 min > draft-hou-pim-ecmp-01 ? 15 min > draft-bhatia-zhang-pim-auth-extension-00.txt Dacheng Zhang 15 min > draft-brigm-deterministicrp-00 Michael Brig 15 min > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim