Subject: mboned: updated MBONED minutes for IETF 60

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:59:34 -0700

MBONE Deployment WG (mboned)
============================

Wednesday, August 4 at 0900-1130

CHAIR:   David Meyer <[email-masked]>
MINUTES: John Meylor <[email-masked]>
y
AGENDA:

o Agenda Bashing                                        5 minutes
    Meyer

  o Review and status of work items                     35 minutes

    Active Drafts
    -------------
    draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-02.txt             5 minutes
      Thaler, et al

Dave Thaler:    Input from last IETF not incorporated yet. Will
                do. Is there interest from deployment community? 

John Meylor:    Still seems to be general interest in
                auto-tunneling 

Tom Pusateri:   Also think there is interest, and also
                applicability to the VPN space. 

    draft-ietf-mboned-ssm232-08.txt                     5 minutes
      Shepherd, et al

David Meyer:    Change of ADs and norm reference to PIM caused
                some delay.  Now reference to new PIM space,
                which we need status on... 

Hugh Holbrook:  As for SSM spec: in IESG,  and for SM: ready for IESG
David Meyer:    So we're just waiting for RFC editors queue

    draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-06.txt                 5 minutes
      Savola/Haberman

Pekka Savola:   Waiting for AD to pass it on to RFC editors. In
                one revision it specifies both FF7 and FFF but
                now limited to FF7, if needed can extend to FFF later.

    draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-01.txt       5 minutes
      Thaler

    draft-ietf-mboned-mroutesec-02.txt                  5 minutes
      Savola et al

Pekka Savola:	Past the IESG evalution.  There may be one little
		thing we would like to add here about
		"passive-mode" PIM, but that can be left out as
		well. 

David Kessens:  Probably don't want to change this.

    draft-ietf-mboned-msdp-deploy-06.txt                        5 minutes
      McBride, et al

David Meyer:    Normative reference dependency problem, waiting
                for variance. 
David Kessens:  Variance should have cleared last call now.

    draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-02.txt                 5 minutes
      Albanna, et al

David Meyer:    Maintenance mode, consider last call and closing
                it. 

  o MSDP MIB Update                                       5 minutes
    Fenner

Bill Fenner:    changes made to keep up with changes in MSDP
                spec. Need to check and see if anyone has
                implemented the msdp notification objects  
                - Just want to point out its only IPv4 specific,
                  but that's because the spec it supports (msdp)
                  is only applicable at this point to IPv4.
                - implementation of 03 near compliant,
                  implementation of 07 has several changes to
                  make 

David Meyer:    need to request variance since its only v4, but
                since MSDP is only spec'd for v4, then it should
                be considered fair and justifiable.

Bill Fenner:    will add section on why its v4 specific.

  o Assignment of IPv6 Multicast Addresses with DHCPv6  20 minutes
    draft-jdurand-assign-addr-ipv6-multicast-dhcpv6-00.txt
    Jerome Durand

Hugh Holbrook:  why does RFC 3306 address allocation scheme not
                work? 

Jerome Durand:  you can choose via this method, but you can't
                determine where the RP mapping exists for that
                address. 

Toerless Ekert: but Embedded RP is subset of 3306

Jerome Durand:  but embedded RP uses a group ID

Pekka Savola:   Host could calculate address with RIID, but thats
                more complicated, it would simplify to have DHCP
                server determine this address. 
Dave Thaler:    All this functionality is covered in MADCAP draft
                What do we expect for primary deployments,
                v6 only:  then, consider DHCP
                v4/v6:  then, consider extending MADCAP to handle this
                Question for WG then is do we go for MADCAP or
                DHCP ? 

  o Embedded-RP and control mechanisms                  20 minutes
    Jerome Durand

                Some discussion of MSDP history
                - ISPs now willing to use 3rd party RP today
                  allowing models leveraging embedded RP
                - Address assignment mechanisms necessary for
                  those RPs 
                - no way to control which hosts use particular RP
                - group_address/register filtering not sufficient
                - control for which hosts use RP
                - functionality needed: to allow external users
                  only if internal users already instantiated the
                  session 

Pekka Savola:   Does the RP have to keep some kind of state?
Jerome Durand:  Should already be covered
Toerless Eckrt: Suggest restating the problem specifically
                as one which occurs with ASM services only, since
                SSM doesn't have this problem.

David Meyer:    Warrants further discussion, please take to
                list. 

  o IPv6 Multicast Deployment Issues                    10 minutes
    draft-savola-v6ops-multicast-issues-03.txt
    Savola

Pekka Savola:   Is this draft useful, should we document?
David Meyer:    Poll conclusion: about the amount who read it
                (majority?) also think it should be wg document 

  o Update on the IMDOC Initiative                      10 minutes
    Meylor/Meyer

        1)      address allocation (Pekka Savola presented from
                the mic): 

Pekka Savola:   Consider changing status of existing RFCs on
                address allocation, so they don't confuse folks
                who assume the are best current documents.
                Examples given by Pekka on the alias: 

RFC3559 Multicast Address Allocation MIB (PS)
RFC2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol (Exp)
RFC2908 The Internet Multicast Address Allocation Architecture (Info)
RFC2907 MADCAP Multicast Scope Nesting State Option (PS)
RFC2776 Multicast-Scope Zone Announcement Protocol (MZAP)  (PS)
RFC2771 An Abstract API for Multicast Address Allocation (Info)
RFC2730 Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP) (PS)

Dave Thaler:    Believe 2908 is still valid, but perhaps fact
                that its not fully implemented is issue. Maybe
                just need to update? 

David Meyer:    Many uncoordinated docs, perhaps need unifying doc.?

Dave Thaler:    Maybe need BCP which describes how various
                mechanisms are currently used - and update those
                referenced docs as needed.

Pekka Savola:   Architecture may not now be valid, may need redo

John Meylor:    Many docs, some valid, some outdated, some part
                of problem not resolved yet, in total its
                confusing, so could use BCP to help guide folks
                through this space 

David Meyer:    Perhaps we can get authors for a unifying doc?
Toerless Eckert: Will this be for ASM or also SSM, and will this
                be academic exercise, since unless it describes
                an address management scheme which is
                commercially viable, it likely doesn't have much
                better chance of success than current situation. 

David Meyer:    We did include address allocation in charter, so
                we can cover this additionally on the list.

        2) MP-LSPs (Yiqun presentation)

David Meyer:    This is good example of the type of issue we
                intended to cover within IMDOC. 
Yakov Rekhter:  This is already covered in Req doc in MPLS and
                its been on last-call. 
Yiqun:          But it has not passed last call and the purpose
                of this presentation is to educate mcast folks in
                MBONED on this open issue since tree-building is
                a critical component being discussed. 

Pekka Savola:   Customers don't necessarily need mcast to justify
                mp solution, could be used for broadcast 

Yakov Rekhter:  Need to include bullet for pim-free core. Also,
                presentation assumes packet based service, but
                should include reference to other services (ex
                cell based). 

Rahul Aggarwal:	Education is good, offered to present on this at
		next MBONED meeting

Yiqun:		This is good, but we should then hold up req and
		spec until this mcast community gets valid input.

John Meylor: 2 key points here:
	     a) Requirements are being discussed in the MPLS WG
	        and the multicast people need to provide input 
             b) The problem is multi-faceted and any spec
	        proposal should provide an applicability
		statement on the extent and limits of the
		proposed solution. 

_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/