Subject: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-03 to standards track?

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:33:13 -0800

Happy New Year folks.

Hitoshi has requested that this draft be changed from an Informational
to a Proposed Standard document now that its nearing a wglc. Upon
adopting this draft we agreed, as a wg, that the document would be
Informational and not standards track. At the time, some were opposed
to anything other than Informational. In order to make such a change
we would, of course, need wg consensus. The vote, in Atlanta, was 6 in
favor of the change, 0 against. What say the rest of you?

thanks,
mike

---

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:06:40 -0800

At the time this was initially submitted, it was suggested that explicit 
tracking was already implemented for years in a number of implementations 
with no apparent interop problems and it was not clear why this 
functionality needed to be specified and ought to be left up to the 
implementation.  The fear was that unnecessary over-specification can 
reduce the flexibility of implementations and could produce a spec that 
was not backward compatible with existing implementations that worked just 
fine.  The proposed compromise was to adopt the doc as informational, so 
folks could understand how explicit tracking worked, but not lead to 
over-specification and reduced flexibility for implementations.  I still 
agree with this decision.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/current/msg02286.html

-Lenny

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013, Mike McBride wrote:

-) Happy New Year folks.
-) 
-) Hitoshi has requested that this draft be changed from an Informational
-) to a Proposed Standard document now that its nearing a wglc. Upon
-) adopting this draft we agreed, as a wg, that the document would be
-) Informational and not standards track. At the time, some were opposed
-) to anything other than Informational. In order to make such a change
-) we would, of course, need wg consensus. The vote, in Atlanta, was 6 in
-) favor of the change, 0 against. What say the rest of you?
-) 
-) thanks,
-) mike
-) _______________________________________________
-) pim mailing list
-) [email-masked]
-) https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
-)

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:00:25 +0900 (JST)

Lenny,

> agree with this decision.

There are some optimization funstions such as specific query
suppression, which may not be implemented in some routers. You may say
these functions are over-spec. But they are not over-spec. They are
necessary functions and eager to be implememted especially in wireless
environments. You can see the fact in rfc6636,
draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mobile, which has just started
adoption call, and other draft proposed in multimob.
Note this draft does not prohibit not to implement such features.
All these features, which can be omitted in some environments/
conditions, are defined as "optional". Then you can keep your
implementation simple.
Decision which features should be optional (i.e. use "MAY") was made
by the discussions in the previous PIM WG meetings. Please read the
latest draft and give me comments if you feel some other features,
which you feel over-spec, should be also optional. We can then start
the discussion about it in the list again.

And the explicit tracking function will be the important feature for
the future standard version of IGMP/MLD. There is no reason to keep it
as informational. Specification of the explicit tracking function to
be standard is necessary for the current and future needs.

I believe they are the reason at the last meeting we agreed on moving
it to proposed standard.
(For your information, please check the minutes of the last meeting;
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-pim)

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 04:55:18 -0800

I support this change (but i said this already in atlanta, so i am not the rest of you ;-).

On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:33:13PM -0800, Mike McBride wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 04:58:54 -0800

If you think three is any over-specification, then maybe that's feedback for the
document itself ? I was hoping that the latest working was not over-specified.

To me the biggest reason for going standards track is to enable us to build derivative
work on standards track. For once there are manaement interfaces (MIBs), but also 
further simplifications/evolution to the IGMP/MLD protocol suite.  If we could not
even agree on the minimum requirements to explicitly track receivers i see a hard
time ahead to make any further protocol improvements.

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [email-masked]
Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture
SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy!

---

From: Sérgio Figueiredo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:23:56 +0000

Dear all,

I support the change from an Informational to a Proposed Standard 
document, as I find the content sufficiently generic and flexible to be 
adopted.

Best regards,
Sérgio

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:25:58 -0800

Stig and I feel we have reached rough consensus. We will be directing
Hitoshi to update his draft to Proposed Standard in his next revision.
Thank you for the feedback.

mike