WG Status Stig/Mike 20 13:30 Discussion of status of different drafts Implementation requirements? +different WGs have different policies +what should PIM WG status be? + WGs view: no formal requirements but chairs will ask about implmentations and encourage responses draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case Greg 15 13:50 Alvaro: Title is “use cases” but actually specifying something? Alvaro: Draft says it updates but also says it is optional Toerless: Optional does not mean cannot be update, does it? Alvaro: Ambiguity about what “update” means. New tag coming: “amends”, which implies that the base spec must use this extension. “Extends” is optional. “See also” means neither amends or extends but worth looking at other RFCs. Toerless: So “amends” means only non-backward compatible changes? Alvaro: Not necessarily. But means this change is important enough older docs need to be revisited. e.g. if registries are changed. Stig: Already WG document so rename. Stig: Suggesting ordering of Hello TLVs. Good to get rid of ordering dependencies Greg: Will remove ordering requirement Stig: Generically useful idea, not tied to DR improvement? Greg: Related to issues to be discussed in DR draft discussion. Stig: Thoughts about WGLC? Perhaps think about some details raised. If work out details before next IETF, last call then. Stig: Follow up on the list draft-zhao-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang Hongji 10 14:05 Open issue: IGMP/MLD proxy module should take into account IGMP-MD: internetowrking function in RFC 8114 Stig: RFC 8114 support? How many implementation are there? Yang model tries to address things common to most implementations Toerless: Good to know full implications Stig: Should we do adoption call on the list? Stig: How many people have read? [Only 2 hands] Stig: We can do adoption call on list. At least support from 5 different vendors. draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing Ramakrishnan/Stig 10 14:15 Stig: How many people have read draft? [Only 3 hands] Stig: Ready for WGLC? Anyone got any views? May use WGLC to force people to read draft. draft-ramki-igmp-ssm-ranges Ramakrishnan 15 14:25 Lenny: How widely deployed is use of SSM range other than 232/8 Ramakrishnan: Yep, seen customer doing so. Nils: Good reason to avoid using range other than 232/8 for SSM. Strange behaviour in Linux kernel. If v2 host with SSM and v3 router, falls back to 232/8 ASM. Solved for moving out of SSM range. Toerless: Reason for administratively scope multicast? Perhaps do as IGMP extension? Useful for pure layer 2. Stig: Useful for mboned document on operational issues with IGMP? Toerless: Perhaps just describe operational motivation in protocol spec? Stig: How many people have read draft? [Only 4 hands] Stig: A bit early to do an adoption call today. Please read and comment draft-song-multicast-telemetry Mike 10 14:40 Mike: Presenting here before requesting slot to present at IPPM at next IETF Greg: RFC 8321 relevant. Authors working on p2mp scenarios. Document in BIER explaining how it use Mike: Doc cited in draft. Will look into it Greg: Hybrid 2 Step method in IPPM working group. Useful and may help alleviate some issues raised. Mike: OK, may chat after meeting Stig: Reason for postcards so no need for additional packets needed draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa Jingrong 20 14:50 Stig: Specify own address and neighbour’s address. RFC for router interface, PIM Hello option. Router can announce loopback address and ID for each interface. Worth considering if it helps Rishabh: RFC for explicit RPF vector in PIM. Did you consider extending that RFC? IGMPv3/MLDv2 bis update TBD 20 15:10 Lenny:igmpv3 and mlpv2 have lots of stuff in them that no one has used. lightweight was written as a spec in response to that. What if we determine that lightweight is a more accurate state of deployment? could that become the new internet standard. Femi: possibly. first determine details. Toerless: We need to determine if there is any interoperability issue. We will figure out through this process if lightweight is the way to go. Lenny: alot of value to remove unused stuff like exclude mode. I'm working with someone that had to write an igmp implementation for vlc. Good to determine what is actually needed. Toerless: We need to pose the proper questions including how to determine if exclude mode is used. Please review the questions. Cutting down the software is after the survey. Femi: don't frame the question to get the answer you want. Stig: the rfc has multiple features, exclude is just one. everyone should get input. Ask the right questions. Alvaro: Question about adding stuff. Is there really a lot of other stuff that has been implemented? Femi: Should we only include things in the rfc? Alvaro: many features that are not documented. Femi: we have open ended questions. We could add questions like what features you don't use. Alvaro: team needs to determine if specification is complete. Needs to balance the internet standard vs adding functionality. Stig: we can't add stuff can only take stuff away. Alvaro: its safe to take stuff away but problem is based on what you take away. Alvaro: we are assuming things right now. Stig: is it useful to determine additiona stuff? Toerless: effort is to help the progression of igmpv3 or igmpv3 light. stig: we want to send this survey out soon so let's review. Make sure we ask the right questions. Toerless: one of the key questions is whom else can we send this to. Besides internet2, etc. Stig: how will we send it out? pdf? webpage? Toerless: webpage probably better. Stig: Tim Chown agreed to anonymize the survey again. We want to send this out before the next ietf.