Deprecating Any-Source Multicast (ASM) for Interdomain Multicast
draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-08-24
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-08-03
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-04-09
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-03-16
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-03-16
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-03-16
|
07 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-03-16
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2020-03-16
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-03-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2020-03-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2020-03-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-03-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-03-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-03-09
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-03-09
|
07 | Tim Chown | New version available: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-07.txt |
2020-03-09
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-09
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mikael Abrahamsson , Toerless Eckert , Leonard Giuliano , Tim Chown |
2020-03-09
|
07 | Tim Chown | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-13
|
06 | Wesley Eddy | Closed request for Last Call review by TSVART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2020-01-13
|
06 | Wesley Eddy | Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to Jana Iyengar was withdrawn |
2020-01-09
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this well-written document! Section 2.1 to deliver traffic from the sender(s) to the receivers. If there are multiple senders … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this well-written document! Section 2.1 to deliver traffic from the sender(s) to the receivers. If there are multiple senders for a given group, traffic from all senders will be delivered to the receiver. Since receivers specify only the group nit: "receivers" plural. Section 3.1 troubleshoot. Some of these issues include complex flooding Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) rules, state attack protection, and filtering of undesired sources. I'm not sure how to parse "complex flooding Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) rules" (but think I could figure out "complex Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) flooding rules" -- do I need to try harder? within one domain. While this approach solves the MSDP issues, it does not solve the problem of unauthorised sources sending traffic to ASM multicast groups; this security issue is one of biggest problems of interdomain multicast. Perhaps it's worth expanding on the security issue as including a substantial level of traffic amplification. (Or do I misunderstand the security issue?) Section 4.1 The more inclusive interpretation of this recommendation is that it also extends to deprecating use of ASM in the case where PIM is Are we claiming or disclaiming this "more inclusive interpretation"? The current wording feels ambiguous, and I don't think we should leave it that way. Section 4.2 support SSM (i.e., explicitly sending source-specific reports). The updated IPv6 Node Requirements RFC [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis] states nit: the I-D reference is not yet an RFC, so it's not proper to refer to it as one; since it's only an informative reference we will not necessarily wait to publish this document until that one has an RFC number assigned, so I think this should be reworded. (Also, even if there was a new RFC number, "updated [...] RFC [RFCXXXX]" would still scan kind of strangely.) Section 4.3 The recommendation to use SSM for interdomain multicast means that applications should properly trigger the sending of IGMPv3/MLDv2 source-specific report messages. It should be noted, however, there is a wide range of applications today that only support ASM. In many cases this is due to application developers being unaware of the operational concerns of networks. This document serves to provide clear direction for application developers to support SSM. Without some discussion of the relative level of difficulty for applications tosupport SSM (to compare against the well-portrayed problems with network support for ASM), it would be fairly easy to misread this as network operators getting an IETF BCP to try to force applications to do what's easy for the network. I'm given to understand that's not actually the case here, as the changes in application software are fairly minor, and no one would expect existing applications to grow a way to announce multicast source addresses spontaneously, so a little more text might go a long way. Section 4.4 While the WG discussions had consensus that best practices should be developed to explain when to use SSM in applications, e.g, when ASM without (S,G) state in the network is better, or when dedicated service-discovery mechanisms should be used, it was agreed that documenting such practices are outside the scope of this document. It might be possible to rephrase this in terms of "the conclusions of the MBONED WG" or "the consensus of the MBONED WG"; the current phrasing feels a little informal to me, though I don't place much weight on my sentiment here. Section 4.6 A lot of this section feels somewhat speculative and leaves me uncertain what the BCP recommendations in this space are. In the case of existing ASM applications that cannot readily be ported to SSM, it may be possible to use some form of protocol mapping, i.e., to have a mechanism to translate a (*,G) join or leave to a (S,G) join or leave, for a specific source, S. The general nit: I think this would read better with fewer commas, i.e., "to translate a (*,G) join or leave to a (S,G) join or leave for a specific source S". Section 4.9 it. This allows easy migration of ASM applications to SSM/PIM-SSM solely through application side development to handle source- nit: hyphenate "application-side". signaling via IGMPv3/MLDv2 and using SSM addresses. No network Do the application developers also consider this work "easy"? ;) When running PIM-SM, IGMPv3/MLDv2 (S,G) membership reports may also result in the desired PIM-SSM (S,G) operations and bypass any RP procedures, but this is not standardized but depends on implementation and may require additional configuration in available products. [...] nit: this sentence is fairly long and convoluted; could it be reworded and/or split up into smaller pieces? Note that these migration recommendations do not include the considerations when or how to evolve those intradomain applications best served by ASM/Bidir-PIM from PIM-SM to Bidir-PIM. This may also be important but is outside the scope of this document. nit: is there a missing word ("for"/"about"/"on") after "considerations"? Accordingly, this document recommends that future work for general purpose interdomain IP multicast focus on SSM items listed in Section 4. nit: hyphenate "general-purpose". Section 6 We could perhaps consider mentioning again the consequences of infrastructure assuming that SSM-range addresses are always used for SSM, such as during the transition period where applications migrating from ASM to SSM continue to use ASM-range addresses, as mentioned in Section 4.7. Changing the model for intradomain multicast to one where source discovery/state-propagation is not done by the network and is instead a responsibility of the application layer means that the applications are responsible for properly implementing such functionality. While it's true that we do want applications to not have bugs in general (and that would hopefully go without saying), we might want to discuss the scope of potential issues if applications get this wrong. Could application bugs (or bugs in host-level IGMPv3 or MLDv2 implementations) specific to SSM usage lead to any worse problems than just "application traffic doesn't flow", e.g., state exhaustion in the network? Section 10.1 I'm not seeing any references to RFC 4610 that would qualify it as normative; if normative is indeed the proper status, perhaps additional citations are in order? |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this well-written and well-reasoned document. Given the rather limited knowledge I have of the nuts and bolts of how multicast works … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this well-written and well-reasoned document. Given the rather limited knowledge I have of the nuts and bolts of how multicast works at the routing layer, I found the text clear and easy to follow. |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Lenny Giuliano | This document now replaces draft-acg-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm instead of None |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Just a documentation nit: this document should be tagged in the Datatracker as replacing draft-acg-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm. |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot comment text updated for Alvaro Retana |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-01-08
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2020-01-07
|
06 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Thanks for a very clear document that was an easy read. I just have a few very minor editorial suggestions, which need no … [Ballot comment] Thanks for a very clear document that was an easy read. I just have a few very minor editorial suggestions, which need no specific reply: — Section 2.1 — Source discovery in SSM is handled by some out-of-band mechanism (i.e., the application layer) The “i.e.” seems a bit odd here to my eye. I’d suggest wording this without the parentheses altogether, thus: NEW Source discovery in SSM is handled by some out-of-band mechanism in the application layer END — Section 2.3 — PIM-SSM expects that the sender's source address(es) is known in advance by receivers The “is” sounds odd with “addresses”, and it’s always difficult to know what to do for number agreement with things such as “address(es)”. I suggest writing around the problem this way: NEW PIM-SSM expects the sender's source address(es) to be known in advance by receivers END — Section 3.2.2 — There needs to be a hyphen in “network-wide”. — Section 4.1 — This document recommends that the use of ASM is deprecated for interdomain multicast This needs subjunctive mood: “that the use of ASM be deprecated”. |
2020-01-07
|
06 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-01-07
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-01-07
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Section 4.1. This section appears to provide multiple definitions of “separate administrative entities”. Per the paragraph “The more inclusive interpretation of this … [Ballot comment] ** Section 4.1. This section appears to provide multiple definitions of “separate administrative entities”. Per the paragraph “The more inclusive interpretation of this recommendation …”, it wasn’t clear to me under what circumstance the reader should use the more “inclusive interpretation”. ** Section 4. This section would benefit from being clearer on who should act on a few of the recommendation: -- Section 4.3 – vendors/developers of multicast applications? -- Section 4.4 – not clear who is supposed to develop this guidance? -- Section 4.6 – not clear who is supposed to developing this guidance long term ** Editorial Nits: -- Section 3.2.3. Typo. s/particularily/particularly/ -- Section 4.9. Typo. s/implentations/implementations/ |
2020-01-07
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-01-07
|
06 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2020-01-06
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Forgot to click da button.... |
2020-01-06
|
06 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-01-06
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] A couple of suggestions to help the document be more timeless: = Section 2.2.1 = s/To this day/At the time of this writing/ … [Ballot comment] A couple of suggestions to help the document be more timeless: = Section 2.2.1 = s/To this day/At the time of this writing/ = Section 4.4 = OLD While the WG discussions had consensus that best practices should be developed to explain when to use SSM in applications, e.g, when ASM without (S,G) state in the network is better, or when dedicated service-discovery mechanisms should be used, it was agreed that documenting such practices are outside the scope of this document. NEW This document describes best practices to explain when to use SSM in applications, e.g, when ASM without (S,G) state in the network is better, or when dedicated service-discovery mechanisms should be used, but specifying these practices is outside the scope of this document. |
2020-01-06
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-01-06
|
06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this well-written document. I'm by far no expert here but reading this document it sounds a bit like RFC3618 should be … |
2020-01-06
|
06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2020-01-03
|
06 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is really easy to read with a nice introduction. I trust the … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is really easy to read with a nice introduction. I trust the responsible AD and my routing colleagues on their evaluation whether it is reasonable, sensible and useful to deprecate ASM in interdomain deployments. Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == Mostly a DISCUSS but really trivial to fix, please refer to RFC 8174 in addition to RFC 2119. Also, AFAIK, Toerless is affiliated to Futurewei and not Huawei, please fix his affiliation in the header. == NITS == -- Section 2.3 -- Please use lowercase in IPv6 addresses. |
2020-01-03
|
06 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot comment text updated for Éric Vyncke |
2020-01-03
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2020-01-03
|
06 | Tim Chown | New version available: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-06.txt |
2020-01-03
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tim Chown) |
2020-01-03
|
06 | Tim Chown | Uploaded new revision |
2019-12-30
|
05 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is really easy to read with a nice introduction. I trust the … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is really easy to read with a nice introduction. I trust the responsible AD and my routing colleagues on their evaluation whether it is reasonable, sensible and useful to deprecate ASM in interdomain deployments. Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == Mostly a DISCUSS but really trivial to fix, please refer to RFC 8174 in addition to RFC 2119. Also, AFAIK, Toerless is affiliated to Futurewei and not Huawei, please fix his affiliation in the header. -- Section 8 -- Should also contain IPv6 examples. == NITS == -- Section 2.3 -- Please use lowercase in IPv6 addresses. |
2019-12-30
|
05 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-12-27
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-01-09 |
2019-12-24
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: David Mandelberg. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2019-12-23
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Ballot has been issued |
2019-12-23
|
05 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-12-23
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-12-23
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-12-23
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-12-23
|
05 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-12-23
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-12-22
|
05 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Loa Andersson. |
2019-12-21
|
05 | Dale Worley | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dale Worley. Sent review to list. |
2019-12-21
|
05 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. Sent review to list. |
2019-12-17
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2019-12-17
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2019-12-15
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: David Mandelberg. |
2019-12-12
|
05 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Loa Andersson |
2019-12-12
|
05 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Loa Andersson |
2019-12-12
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley |
2019-12-12
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley |
2019-12-12
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David Mandelberg |
2019-12-12
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David Mandelberg |
2019-12-12
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Jana Iyengar |
2019-12-12
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Jana Iyengar |
2019-12-10
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-12-09
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-12-09
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-12-23): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm@ietf.org, cdoyle@juniper.net, mboned@ietf.org, mboned-chairs@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-12-23): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm@ietf.org, cdoyle@juniper.net, mboned@ietf.org, mboned-chairs@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net, Colin Doyle Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Deprecating ASM for Interdomain Multicast) to Best Current Practice The IESG has received a request from the MBONE Deployment WG (mboned) to consider the following document: - 'Deprecating ASM for Interdomain Multicast' as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-12-23. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document recommends deprecation of the use of Any-Source Multicast (ASM) for interdomain multicast. It recommends the use of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) for interdomain multicast applications and that hosts and routers in these deployments fully support SSM. The recommendations in this document do not preclude the continued use of ASM within a single organisation or domain and are especially easy to adopt in existing intradomain ASM/PIM-SM deployments. Requirements Language and Terminology The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc3810: Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6 (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) rfc3956: Embedding the Rendezvous Point (RP) Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) rfc4607: Source-Specific Multicast for IP (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) rfc4610: Anycast-RP Using Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) rfc3307: Allocation Guidelines for IPv6 Multicast Addresses (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) rfc3376: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3 (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) |
2019-12-09
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-12-09
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Last call was requested |
2019-12-09
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-12-09
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-12-09
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-12-09
|
05 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2019-12-02
|
05 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2019-11-07
|
05 | Lenny Giuliano | Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 6 June 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, … Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 6 June 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? *** BCP The type of RFC is not indicated in the title page header, but is referred to in the Introduction. BCP is the appropriate type for this RFC as it provides guidance for deprecating ASM and using only SSM for interdomain multicast. *** (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. *** This document recommends a BCP for deprecation and replacement of Any-Source Multicast (ASM) methods for interdomain multicast with Source-Specific Multicast (SSM). This document additionally recommends host/network support for Internet Group Messaging Protocol version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery version 2 (MLDv2). Further guidance for these protocols can be found in [ RFC4604 ]. Scale limitations of the commonly used Sparse-Mode (PIM-SM)/Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) ASM architecture are appropriately highlighted as the premise for this recommendation. Design comparisons, highlighting practical and operational improvements using an SSM-based interdomain multicast design are appropriate and informative. This document makes no recommendations for intradomain multicast. *** Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? *** There was some initial concern from a few individuals that ASM was still useful in intradomain deployments. The authors resolved these concerns by making it clear throughout the doc that this recommendation to deprecate ASM applies only to interdomain deployments and makes no recommendations for intradomain multicast deployments. Other than this, no other controversies with this document were noted. *** Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? *** Document is well written, defining a clear problem statement and supporting scenarios and examples for the core recommendations. Assumptions regarding the future-state of ASM protocols are appropriately highlighted, and the impact on the document recommendations are addressed. *** Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? *** Document shepherd: Colin Doyle Responsible AD: Warren Kumari *** (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. *** I have read the draft and reviewed the minutes and etherpad records for the mboned WG. This draft is supported by participants and uncontroversial. *** (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? *** No *** (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. *** No. Recommendations defined are appropriate and supported. Future adjustments to these recommendations based on protocol and standards development are accounted for. *** (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. *** I have no concerns that warrant review, although I would expect the usual slow adoption cycle of the protocols required by the recommendations in this document by providers and, to a lesser extent, manufacturers. This document posits that support for these protocols (IGMPv3 and MLDv2) is "widespread" in common OS's. This is an optimistic supposition that naturally assumes that devices running common OS's are running current versions. As this document lays out no specific timeline for deprecating multidomain ASM, this consideration becomes largely academic. *** (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? *** Each author has confirmed that he is not aware of any IPR: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/T6DCvcLuGglbHc212liB40h2pT8 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/KKKsdjlHwN5nCne2qmPbb7VXoTw https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/y01M8iGyoLFm-f-sGTGEAKZzOFQ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/EMG62prrTbj5D1JufUqHY5a5KY4 No IPR disclosures from anyone else in the WG were noted. *** (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. *** Each author has confirmed that he is not aware of any IPR. No IPR disclosures from anyone else in the WG were noted. *** (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? *** Consensus is strong. Areas of discussion were found to be largely around the scope and forcefulness of the recommendation as it related to intradomain multicast. Ultimately, the language recommending deprecation of ASM for intradomain multicast were removed. "I think it's important that we don't water down the recommendation so much that the message gets lost. My pref would be to strongly recommend SSM (and thus, no-ASM) for interdomain and provide some gentle nudging for SSM in intradomain, while recognizing that what one does in his own network is his own business. We can't really mandate/decree, but it is our role/responsibility to provide guidance and recommendations based on our expertise." - Tim Chown *** (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) *** No *** (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. *** Nits check was run against version 5 of this draft. https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-05.txt Nit regarding multicast addresses can be disregarded as document is referencing the complete multicast ipv4 range and not a generic example multicast address. Nit regarding age of document is assumed trivial and disregarded. Version reviewed is current. Nit regarding draft publication should result in an edit/update. On line 377, 705, and 707, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis is referenced. This draft has been published as RFC8504. *** (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. *** No review required *** (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? *** Yes *** (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? *** No, but an edit to the document is required. All references are currently in RFC status. The reference to "I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis" should be updated to reflect the published RFC8504. *** (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. *** None based on my review. *** (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. *** No. This document provides BCP recommendations using existing protocols, standards, and RFC's. *** (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). *** No request of IANA are made or required by this document per section 7. *** (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. *** No new IANA registries are required by this document per section 7. *** (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. *** n/a *** |
2019-11-07
|
05 | Lenny Giuliano | Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari |
2019-11-07
|
05 | Lenny Giuliano | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2019-11-07
|
05 | Lenny Giuliano | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-11-07
|
05 | Lenny Giuliano | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-11-07
|
05 | Lenny Giuliano | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-11-07
|
05 | Lenny Giuliano | Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None |
2019-11-01
|
05 | Colin Doyle | Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 6 June 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, … Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 6 June 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? *** BCP The type of RFC is not indicated in the title page header, but is referred to in the Introduction. BCP is the appropriate type for this RFC as it provides guidance for deprecating ASM and using only SSM for interdomain multicast. *** (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. *** This document recommends a BCP for deprecation and replacement of Any-Source Multicast (ASM) methods for interdomain multicast with Source-Specific Multicast (SSM). This document additionally recommends host/network support for Internet Group Messaging Protocol version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery version 2 (MLDv2). Further guidance for these protocols can be found in [ RFC4604 ]. Scale limitations of the commonly used Sparse-Mode (PIM-SM)/Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) ASM architecture are appropriately highlighted as the premise for this recommendation. Design comparisons, highlighting practical and operational improvements using an SSM-based interdomain multicast design are appropriate and informative. This document makes no recommendations for intradomain multicast. *** Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? *** There was some initial concern from a few individuals that ASM was still useful in intradomain deployments. The authors resolved these concerns by making it clear throughout the doc that this recommendation to deprecate ASM applies only to interdomain deployments and makes no recommendations for intradomain multicast deployments. Other than this, no other controversies with this document were noted. *** Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? *** Document is well written, defining a clear problem statement and supporting scenarios and examples for the core recommendations. Assumptions regarding the future-state of ASM protocols are appropriately highlighted, and the impact on the document recommendations are addressed. *** Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? *** Document shepherd: Colin Doyle Responsible AD: Warren Kumari *** (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. *** I have read the draft and reviewed the minutes and etherpad records for the mboned WG. This draft is supported by participants and uncontroversial. *** (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? *** No *** (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. *** No. Recommendations defined are appropriate and supported. Future adjustments to these recommendations based on protocol and standards development are accounted for. *** (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. *** I have no concerns that warrant review, although I would expect the usual slow adoption cycle of the protocols required by the recommendations in this document by providers and, to a lesser extent, manufacturers. This document posits that support for these protocols (IGMPv3 and MLDv2) is "widespread" in common OS's. This is an optimistic supposition that naturally assumes that devices running common OS's are running current versions. As this document lays out no specific timeline for deprecating multidomain ASM, this consideration becomes largely academic. *** (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? *** Each author has confirmed that he is not aware of any IPR: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/T6DCvcLuGglbHc212liB40h2pT8 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/KKKsdjlHwN5nCne2qmPbb7VXoTw https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/y01M8iGyoLFm-f-sGTGEAKZzOFQ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/EMG62prrTbj5D1JufUqHY5a5KY4 No IPR disclosures from anyone else in the WG were noted. *** (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. *** Each author has confirmed that he is not aware of any IPR. No IPR disclosures from anyone else in the WG were noted. *** (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? *** Consensus is strong. Areas of discussion were found to be largely around the scope and forcefulness of the recommendation as it related to intradomain multicast. Ultimately, the language recommending deprecation of ASM for intradomain multicast were removed. "I think it's important that we don't water down the recommendation so much that the message gets lost. My pref would be to strongly recommend SSM (and thus, no-ASM) for interdomain and provide some gentle nudging for SSM in intradomain, while recognizing that what one does in his own network is his own business. We can't really mandate/decree, but it is our role/responsibility to provide guidance and recommendations based on our expertise." - Tim Chown *** (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) *** No *** (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. *** Nits check was run against version 5 of this draft. https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-05.txt Nit regarding multicast addresses can be disregarded as document is referencing the complete multicast ipv4 range and not a generic example multicast address. Nit regarding age of document is assumed trivial and disregarded. Version reviewed is current. Nit regarding draft publication should result in an edit/update. On line 377, 705, and 707, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis is referenced. This draft has been published as RFC8504. *** (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. *** No review required *** (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? *** Yes *** (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? *** No, but an edit to the document is required. All references are currently in RFC status. The reference to "I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis" should be updated to reflect the published RFC8504. *** (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. *** None based on my review. *** (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. *** No. This document provides BCP recommendations using existing protocols, standards, and RFC's. *** (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). *** No request of IANA are made or required by this document per section 7. *** (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. *** No new IANA registries are required by this document per section 7. *** (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. *** n/a *** |
2019-10-08
|
05 | Lenny Giuliano | Notification list changed to Colin Doyle <cdoyle@juniper.net> |
2019-10-08
|
05 | Lenny Giuliano | Document shepherd changed to Colin Doyle |
2019-09-06
|
05 | Greg Shepherd | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2019-09-06
|
05 | Greg Shepherd | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2019-09-04
|
05 | Tim Chown | New version available: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-05.txt |
2019-09-04
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-09-04
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert , Tim Chown , Mikael Abrahamsson , Leonard Giuliano |
2019-09-04
|
05 | Tim Chown | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-29
|
04 | Tim Chown | New version available: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-04.txt |
2019-08-29
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-29
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert , Tim Chown , Mikael Abrahamsson , Leonard Giuliano |
2019-08-29
|
04 | Tim Chown | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-15
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-02-11
|
03 | Lenny Giuliano | New version available: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-03.txt |
2019-02-11
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-11
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert , Tim Chown , Mikael Abrahamsson , Leonard Giuliano |
2019-02-11
|
03 | Lenny Giuliano | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-22
|
02 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-02.txt |
2018-10-22
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-22
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert , Tim Chown , Mikael Abrahamsson , Leonard Giuliano |
2018-10-22
|
02 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-22
|
01 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-01.txt |
2018-10-22
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-22
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert , Tim Chown , Mikael Abrahamsson , Leonard Giuliano |
2018-10-22
|
01 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-09
|
00 | Tim Chown | New version available: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-00.txt |
2018-08-09
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-08-09
|
00 | Tim Chown | Set submitter to "Tim Chown ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: mboned-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-08-09
|
00 | Tim Chown | Uploaded new revision |