Subject: [pim] [[email-masked]: PIM meeting minutes]

From: Liming Wei <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:49:16 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks to Lorenzo, now we have the following minutes for the PIM
WG minutes. I did minor editing to correct the spelling of names
etc.

Again, I'd like to issue another request for reviewers on the specs,
especially the PIM-SM spec. As a working group, we need to make forward
progress.  We need at least 2 or 3 more reviewers, in addition
to Nidhi (thanks Nidhi), and we need to get the reviews done in
1 month after this IETF.

-Liming

From: Lorenzo Vicisano <[email-masked]>
Subject: PIM meeting minutes

Mark Handley
updates on PIM-SM
=================

There appeared to be (*,*,RP) inconsistency in the spec
.. it turned out that the spec was correct, but hard to understand
proposal is to leave the current specification, but add better
description.

Open issues:
   -  Null register .. some of the fields are not fully specified
      Cisco and Juniper do different things

   -  No Checksum .. it's a problem for v6 (that doesn't have IP checksum)
      What do do ?

      comment: firewall are checking the inside packet in the register..
      Bill: there is nothing to check in NULL register

      No directions where given .. the authors will decide

   - Sanity check on the spec by Pavlin Radoslavov
   - ready for last call, but need reviewers. Nidhi Baskar volunteered..
     one more ?

Bidir Updates
Isidor Kouvelas
===============
      
Revised version submitted 2 weeks ago

changes:

   RP replaced by RPA and RPL
       The RP in bidir does not have any special function. The RPL
       (the ling where the RP Address belong) is what counts. DF election
       does not occur in the RPL
   clarified election in the RPF interface
   Joins sent to the wrong RPF are recorded by the target,
       to improve convergency at a later stage
   Added more description text on DF election
   Lorenzo Added security consideration

open issues:

   Per-Group load balancing
	Long discussion.. decided to modify the spec in an
        non-interoperable way to allow this.
   BSR hashing breaks scalability of upstream forwarding scalability and
   elimination of data-driven events.
	decided to get rid of BSR-hashing

Dino Farinacci
on anycast-RP PIM spec

Version 0 in Jan presented at SF. Got some feedback.
Dino will update to draft 1.

Add as WG item ?
Tom and Liming are in favor.
Lorenzo: need requirements
Dino: for v4 or v6? both
[missed part of this because was talking]
Alex Zinin: if we add work we need to revise the agenda. But he wants to see
progress by next ietf.
authors: SM and bidir should be ready to go to IESG by next IETF
ADs to talk with Chairs before deciding on item addition

Giuliano: should PIM WG take embedded RP ?
Liming: feel it's mostly operational
Dave: MBONED WG already accepted it as WG item
Mark: not accepted until discussed on the mboned list

Charter Updates

Milestones:

   - any comments?
   No comments.
------- End of forwarded message -------
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]
http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim