From okonnikov@gmail.com  Thu Aug  2 02:23:24 2012
Return-Path: <okonnikov@gmail.com>
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 5428C21F8E54 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Aug 2012 02:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.717
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.717 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.881,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ATtGjxJWXg+c for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Aug 2012 02:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E064421F8D59 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Aug 2012 02:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so5226615wgb.13 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 02:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=CLJY+6tH3ToDB4wyIktsXwWXvl/AgIylqynxE0KW/7M=; b=LXQBPvf9m/PNdZpGM0eRQ25zoMMBKVMemtzRpGMNGtv71kbMkwuK1WRl95AKQpkIQF 98lcFBrkV2NUEepnNc5hfYf46wm0+eX2mGmiv0tAhtNKxqBFhhnohJL+2I2qm3O8kCIf UD9YJhcP6oulHiRfmi7Y5dDTc1uSXCPzw22rVERdxItPAdlCENsg2hSNmZanu9dUmrWE ZIrGgZU3QJQ6rEY7Ydae45ZOWMF6J5kPEjQdkqzRvGAsFJ1IGJ7dYbDsrFDfYARJ+ihW MIZOrKaBou8y9QdKlC3vQqXHcT1Vs8TH62lo22aJfRrBgzWPuxHAhtBvR6QnJ5Y35PKY uxZA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.91.1 with SMTP id ca1mr3113830wib.8.1343899401908; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 02:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.197 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 02:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:23:21 +0400
Message-ID: <CALZVhZXwurbgFmAhpVGcPuOev7zOHMxzKUz0naXUVHEky3ZZ+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aleksandr Okonnikov <okonnikov@gmail.com>
To: pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043d67df76f10304c644f66f
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:38:37 -0700
Subject: [pim] PIM-SM Prune-Echo behavior
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:24:16 -0000

--f46d043d67df76f10304c644f66f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hello,

I'm sorry to trouble WG, but could anyone explain why Prune-Echo is sent
after pruning (*,G) or (S,G) on interface (after expiring PP timer) and not
before (during PP state)? Am I correct that goal of sending Prune-Echo is
to prevent downstream routers who haven't heard Prune (because it had lost
in LAN or LAN is partitioned) from ending receive appropriate streams? If
so, then, in my mind, it would be correct to send Prune-Echo before pruning
(*,G)/(S,G) on upstream router's interface and somehow expand PP state, for
instance, with additional time, such that upstream router would be able to
complete Prune-Echo procedure (for example, to be able receive override
Join in response to Prune-Echo) before transiting to Pruned state. (PIM-SM
specification).

My apologies if I'm somewhere wrong.

Thanks in advance for attention.

--f46d043d67df76f10304c644f66f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-se=
rif">Hello,</span><div style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-fam=
ily:arial,sans-serif">
<br></div><div style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:aria=
l,sans-serif">I&#39;m sorry to trouble WG, but could anyone explain why Pru=
ne-Echo is sent after pruning (*,G) or (S,G) on interface (after expiring P=
P timer) and not before (during PP state)? Am I correct that goal of sendin=
g Prune-Echo is to prevent downstream routers who haven&#39;t heard Prune (=
because it had lost in LAN or LAN is partitioned) from ending receive appro=
priate streams? If so, then, in my mind, it would be correct to send Prune-=
Echo before pruning (*,G)/(S,G) on upstream router&#39;s interface and some=
how expand PP state, for instance, with additional time, such that upstream=
 router would be able to complete Prune-Echo procedure (for example, to be =
able receive override Join in response to Prune-Echo) before transiting to =
Pruned state. (PIM-SM specification).</div>

<div style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-ser=
if"><br></div><div style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:=
arial,sans-serif">
My apologies if I&#39;m somewhere wrong.</div><div style=3D"color:rgb(34,34=
,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div style=3D"c=
olor:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">
Thanks in advance for attention.</div>

--f46d043d67df76f10304c644f66f--

From stig@venaas.com  Fri Aug 10 10:27:02 2012
Return-Path: <stig@venaas.com>
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 7D38721F8494 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.671
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A6LtsEt0CaZe for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:27:02 -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 A436F21F8484 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:b15c:4c31:8472:161a] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:b15c:4c31:8472:161a]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 522557FEF for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:26:59 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <50254461.3050001@venaas.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:26:57 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [pim] IETF 84 pim minutes
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:27:02 -0000

Draft minutes are now posted at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-pim

Stig

From iesg-secretary@ietf.org  Mon Aug 13 08:17:30 2012
Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
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 B1DCA21F87A3; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.519
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6zeb4GZ3jdxT; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44A421F87AA; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.33
Message-ID: <20120813151729.5715.97620.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:29 -0700
Cc: pim chair <pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, pim mailing list <pim@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [pim] Protocol Action: 'Protocol Independent Multicast ECMP Redirect' to	Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-05.txt)
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:17:30 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Protocol Independent Multicast ECMP Redirect'
  (draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-05.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Protocol Independent Multicast
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-ecmp/




Technical Summary

  This document introduces the ECMP Redirect, a mechanism to improve
  the RPF procedure over ECMPs.  It allows ECMP path selection to be
  based on administratively selected metrics, such as data
  transmission delays, path preferences and routing metrics.

Working Group Summary

  There is consensus within the PIM WG to publish this document. The
  document has been actively discussed on the wg list and in wg
  meetings.

Document Quality

  There is at least one implementation that will soon ship.

Personnel

  Mike McBride (mmcbride7@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
  Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the responsible AD.

From adrian@olddog.co.uk  Thu Aug 16 02:20:31 2012
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 46B5121F8600 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.513
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 kZ+3uCHENiWp for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F1B21F85FF for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:20:29 -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 q7G9KSrX029272 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:20:28 +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 q7G9KPSx029215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:20:26 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <pim@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:20:21 +0100
Message-ID: <0d8b01cd7b90$5d0e2e90$172a8bb0$@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: Ac17kEI4r5akMErHQsOe1NO6obD5VQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: [pim] Triage on Errata on RFC 3973
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:20:31 -0000

Hello,

There is a little cluster of Errata on RFC 3973. I'd like to mop them up. Your
opinions are encouraged.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3271
This looks right to me.
At the least it makes the text in 4.5.1 consistent with 4.4.2.3.
I propose to Verify this.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3270
This also looks right.
Again, consistency with 4.4.2.3 is desirable.
However, for clarity, I propose to fix this by making the change in the new text
in the previous Errata note, and then rejecting this as a duplicate of 3271.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3286
This may be fine and useful, but it does not qualify as Errata because it is
introducing new text and material.
If the WG feels strongly about this, it can be brought forward as a small
Informational I-D or included in an update of this RFC.
I propose to Reject this giving that reason.

Thanks,
Adrian


From stig@venaas.com  Thu Aug 30 15:42:15 2012
Return-Path: <stig@venaas.com>
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 894BA11E8091 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.669
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 7JViejYaNAtt for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [158.38.152.126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D147121F8498 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.154.208.116] (128-107-239-234.cisco.com [128.107.239.234]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C98F7FFB; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:41:50 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <503FEC2B.2090905@venaas.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:41:47 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Liu Hui <helen.liu@huawei.com>
References: <0521328FA8CCCE4089CA3C9261A28DD932205015@SZXEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <0521328FA8CCCE4089CA3C9261A28DD932205015@SZXEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pim] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lts-pim-hello-mtu-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:42:15 -0000

Hi Helen

In the pim meeting we were wondering whether there were similar issues
in unicast routing protocols and how they handle it. The routing area
AD (Adrian) suggested that we bring it up on the routing area wg list
rtgwg@ietf.org. At least I think that was the list he suggested. I think
that would be a good place for such discussions.

Stig



From adrian@olddog.co.uk  Fri Aug 31 11:11:19 2012
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 69E6D21F855B for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.534
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 7XuGhJaETnhN for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA7821F8554 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7VIB47A023342;  Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:11:04 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7VIB3uk023333 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:11:03 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Stig Venaas'" <stig@venaas.com>, "'Liu Hui'" <helen.liu@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:11:03 +0100
Message-ID: <23df01cd87a3$fc1891a0$f449b4e0$@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: Ac2Ho/P8Wv3Gl3CrT9SKZGuu6IaWJg==
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: pim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pim] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lts-pim-hello-mtu-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:11:19 -0000

Yup,

Sending the question to a number of places seems like a good idea.

I suggest routing-discussion@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org
You can certainly also add rtgwg@ietf.org

I suggest that you request that responses are sent only to you and to the PIM WG
to avoid spamming everyone!

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig
> Venaas
> Sent: 30 August 2012 23:42
> To: Liu Hui
> Cc: pim@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pim] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lts-pim-hello-mtu-
> 00.txt
> 
> Hi Helen
> 
> In the pim meeting we were wondering whether there were similar issues
> in unicast routing protocols and how they handle it. The routing area
> AD (Adrian) suggested that we bring it up on the routing area wg list
> rtgwg@ietf.org. At least I think that was the list he suggested. I think
> that would be a good place for such discussions.
> 
> Stig
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim