RE: [pim] New PIM Charter and milestones

["John Meylor \(jmeylor\)" <jmeylor at cisco.com>]

Rahul, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rahul Aggarwal [mailto:rahul at juniper.net] 
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:36 AM
> To: Michael McBride (mmcbride)
> Cc: pim at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pim] New PIM Charter and milestones
> 
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Please see below:
> 
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Mike McBride wrote:
> 
> > Here is a second pass at pimwg rechartering text. Please review. I 
> > added a 'may' with BSR which 'may' satisfy Lenny's previous concern.
> >
> > 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 could involve multipoint label 
> > switching,
> 
> "multipoint label switching" is within the charter of the 
> MPLS WG. This shouldn't be a charter item in the PIM WG.

PIM WG should address any/all pim enhancement
work necessary to support ongoing multipoint label switching

btw, its logical to expect that a system effecting several protocols
has work in more than one working group

> > reliability, resiliency, scalability, management, security and VPNs.
> 
> Multicast in L2VPNs is in the charter of L2VPN WG, and 
> multicast in L3VPNs is in the charter of L3VPN WG. VPNs 
> shouldn't be a charter item in the PIM WG.

again, PIM WG should address PIM related components of *VPN
systems.  


 john


> 
> rahul
> 
> 
> > Additional work on PIM-BIDIR and BSR may also be necessary. The 
> > working group will continue to specify the MIBs required 
> for PIM and 
> > its enhancements. 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.
> > The working group will determine if a Version 3 of PIM is required.
> >
> > Goals and Milestones:
> >
> > Mar    2006     Ratify new WG charter and milestones
> > Jul    2006     Submit the BSR MIB as a Proposed Standard
> > Jul    2006     Develop a reliable pim specification
> > Jul    2006     Submit a generic TLV PIM Join Attribute 
> Proposed Standard
> > draft
> > Jul    2006     Submit RPF Vector (use of PIM Join Attribute) as a
> > Proposed Standard
> > Jul    2006     Submit a mechanism to authenticate PIM link 
> local messages
> > using AH as Proposed Standard
> > Jul    2006     Submit an Informational PIM last hop 
> threats document.
> >
> > -mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pim mailing list
> > pim at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> 

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim