Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing Architecture
RFC 5110

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2007-10-04 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
> Cisco's proprietary CGMP [CGMP] provides a solution where the routers
> notify the switches, but also allows the switches to snoop IGMP
> packets to enable faster notification of hosts no longer wishing to
> receive a group.  Fast leave behaviour support for IGMPv3 hasn't been
> implemented.  Due to IGMP report suppression in IGMPv1 and IGMPv2,
> multicast is still flooded to ports which were once members of a
> group as long as there is at least one receiver on the link.
> Flooding restrictions are done based on multicast MAC addresses.
> IPv6 is not supported.

It was unclear to me where the words "implemented" and
"supported" refer to in the above. Are these things
intrinsic to CGMP, or do they relate to Cisco's implementation.
Its not clear that you want to discussion individual
implementations in this RFC.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Lisa Dusseault) Yes

(Ross Callon) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Comment (2007-10-04 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The text in the document was very different than the abstract and title had me expecting.

(Chris Newman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-10-03)
No email
send info
Please add RPF to section 1.1.

Section 2.1.1 PIM-SM

While this is arguably the most important of the multicast
protocols, there is very little information about the protocol
here.  In fact, I got most of my information about PIM-SM from
comparative statements in section 2.1.2 PIM-DM.  Given its
importance, consider expanding this section.

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(David Ward) (was Discuss) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

Comment (2007-10-02 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Appendix A.1

First of all the RMT WG has now gone beyond specifying experimental standards. A number of the building blocks have already moved to proposed standard and the first protocol instantiations are close. 

Secondly, I think that NORM (RFC 3940) and FLUTE (3926) also should be mentioned when PGM is mentioned.