Re: [pim] New PIM Charter rev3

[Brian Haberman <brian at innovationslab.net>]

Hey!  I wouldn't call MAGMA dead, we are just resting. :)

Seriously, the group is still open since we have not published all of
our documents yet.  My intent is to keep the list open for the
discussion of group management related issues.

Regards,
Brian


Leonard Giuliano wrote:
> How about widening the scope a bit more?  With the deaths of such WGs as 
> Magma and IDMR, there is no WG that handles mcast routing and group 
> membership protocols outside of PIM anymore.  Currently, Mboned is used as 
> the catch-all WG for these issues.  However, protocol development is 
> explicitly out of scope for Mboned.  What about renaming the PIM WG the 
> Mcast Routing Protocols WG, and it would then be responsible for all mcast 
> routing and group membership protocol developments.  Specifically, it 
> would include PIM, IGMP, MLD, MSDP, BGMP, etc.  The amount of IGMP, MLD, 
> MSDP and BGMP development is quite minimal at this time, but it does 
> occasionally occur, and it would be good for it to have an appropriate and 
> welcome home.
> 
> Mboned would still handle deployment issues, addressing and transition, 
> and the protocols that support each (AMT, MADCAP, etc).
> 
> In any event, I do think it would be worthwhile to formally bifurcate 
> deployment and routing protocols into 2 separate WGs.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> -Lenny
> 
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Mike McBride wrote:
> 
> -) All comments, both on and off list, have been addressed in the following
> -) revised Charter/Milestones. Thank you for you feedback. Please review this
> -) latest revision:
> -) 
> -) 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 reliability, resiliency, scalability,
> -) management, and security.
> -) 
> -) The PIM WG will also consider implications of VPN service on PIM when it's a
> -) component of that service or when PIM interfaces with that service at a VPN
> -) edge. If L2VPN or L3VPN WGs determine that support for multicast in L2VPNs
> -) and/or L3VPNs requires extensions to PIM, then such extensions could be
> -) developed within the PIM WG.
> -) 
> -) 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    2007     Ratify new WG charter and milestones
> -) Jul    2007     Submit the BSR MIB as a Proposed Standard
> -) Nov    2007     Propose a more reliable pim solution which includes refresh
> -) reduction
> -) Nov    2007     Submit a generic TLV PIM Join Attribute Proposed Standard
> -) draft
> -) Nov    2007     Submit RPF Vector (use of PIM Join Attribute) as a Proposed
> -) Standard
> -) Nov    2007     Submit a mechanism to authenticate PIM link local messages as
> -) PS
> -) Nov    2007     Submit an Informational PIM last hop threats document.
> -) 
> -) thanks,
> -) 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