Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3
draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-12

[Ballot comment]
I reviewed the diff between this and RFC3376 only for this position.

I don't understand the SHOULD NOTs in Section 4.2.13.  What harm to interoperability results from sending them if they are simply ignored?

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-11
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S9.4

* "IPsec", per RFC 4301 S1.1.  =)

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document. Also, thank you to Jouni Korhonen for the OpsDir review -- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-3376bis-10-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2024-06-04/
I had similar questions (well, ok, I didn't until I read Jouni's review, and then I did :-)) -- thanks to Brian for answering them, his reply makes sense to me.

IANA issues: RFC 3376 is the reference for a registry and registration at https://www.iana.org/assignments/igmp-type-numbers, as well as an informational reference at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix, but the IANA Considerations section indicates states only that any actions are handled in 3228bis (which does not mention these items). The IC section needs to tell IANA how to handle the existing references.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-11

Thank you for the work put into this document. I have mainly reviewed the diff with RFC 3376:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc3376&url2=draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-11&difftype=--html

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit.

Special thanks to Stig Venaas for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Bob Halley, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-3376bis-11-intdir-telechat-halley-2024-07-28/ (just one nit that I have repeated in my ballot)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Internet Standard ?

Should this document aims at "Internet standard" per RFC 6410 ?

## Sections 4.1.4 and 4.2.3

Should the IANA registry name be used rather than the reference to the RFC creating that registry ?

Should there be the usual text "unassigned bits in the Flags field MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception" ?

## Section 4.2.13

Perhaps a little pedantic, but what is a "valid IP address" ? Suggest using "valid unicast IP address" (and perhaps "non link-local" ?).

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 6.4.2

From Bob Halley's review `6.4.2 paragraph 8 duplicates a word in the text "Section Section 6.6.3".`

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Loganaden Velvindron for the secdir review

Security Considerations:  Both integrity (forgery) and authentication is addressed sufficiently.  Consider adding a sentence to address the lack of confidentiality (and privacy) protection. For example, exposure may lead to a passive listener being able to map the network.

It is understood that it is very difficult/impossible to provide either confidentiality protection for traffic in these protocols.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review.

** Consider explicitly naming the registries in question:

-- Section 4., “IGMP message types are registered per [I-D.ietf-pim-3228bis].”
-- Section 4.1.4.  Flags, “The Flags field is a bitstring managed by an IANA registry defined in [I-D.ietf-pim-3228bis].”
-- Section 4.2.3.  Flags, “The Flags field is a bitstring managed by an IANA registry defined in [I-D.ietf-pim-3228bis].”

** Section 10
  All IGMP types described in this document are managed via
  [I-D.ietf-pim-3228bis].

Does this imply that there is no IANA action in this document?  Consider just saying that.

** Idnits reported the following:

  -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  The
    disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have
    been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights
    to the IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current and
    original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the
    disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this
    comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

Has one of the original authors of RFC3376 been approached to file the appropriate paperwork with the Trust to assign the new rights?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-10, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. IANA understands that the actions required for completion are documented in another draft: [I-D.ietf-pim-3228bis].

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.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-3376bis-10, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions and that the actions required for completion are documented in another draft: [I-D.ietf-pim-3228bis].

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.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-pim-3376bis@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, stig@venaas.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim)
to consider the following document: - 'Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 3'
  as Internet Standard

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 2024-06-06. 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 specifies a revised Version 3 of the Internet Group
  Management Protocol, IGMPv3.  IGMP is the protocol used by IPv4
  systems to report their IP multicast group memberships to neighboring
  multicast routers.  Version 3 of IGMP adds support for source
  filtering, that is, the ability for a system to report interest in
  receiving packets only from specific source addresses, or from all
  but specific source addresses, sent to a particular multicast
  address.  That information may be used by multicast routing protocols
  to avoid delivering multicast packets from specific sources to
  networks where there are no interested receivers.

  This document obsoletes RFC 3376.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-3376bis/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc2113: IP Router Alert Option (Proposed Standard - Legacy stream)
    rfc2236: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2 (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc4302: IP Authentication Header (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc4607: Source-Specific Multicast for IP (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-pim-3376bis@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, stig@venaas.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim)
to consider the following document: - 'Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 3'
  as Internet Standard

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 2024-06-05. 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 specifies a revised Version 3 of the Internet Group
  Management Protocol, IGMPv3.  IGMP is the protocol used by IPv4
  systems to report their IP multicast group memberships to neighboring
  multicast routers.  Version 3 of IGMP adds support for source
  filtering, that is, the ability for a system to report interest in
  receiving packets only from specific source addresses, or from all
  but specific source addresses, sent to a particular multicast
  address.  That information may be used by multicast routing protocols
  to avoid delivering multicast packets from specific sources to
  networks where there are no interested receivers.

  This document obsoletes RFC 3376.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-3376bis/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc2113: IP Router Alert Option (Proposed Standard - Legacy stream)
    rfc2236: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2 (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc4302: IP Authentication Header (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc4607: Source-Specific Multicast for IP (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
Several people, some of the more active participants, have voiced their support.
Some concerns were raised during WGLC related to fallback to older versions and
SSM. This has been resolved after a longer discussion. No other issues raised.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
There were some differences of opinion on whether it was necessary to add text on
fallback to older versions and SSM, after some discussion this was added. It
looks like we found a good compromise.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
There are many implementations of IGMPv3. This is updating that based on errata
and implementation/deployment experiences. The WG did a survey to get input.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
No

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, the document is in great shape. Only minor changes from RFC 3376.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
All areas should be sufficiently addressed by 3376, and this just has minor
changes.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Internet Standard. Not sure which attributes.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes. Not aware of any IPR for the original document. The author/editor of this
document is not aware of any IPR either.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Authors of the previous document are listed as contributors. We are assuming they
are okay with this. The author of the new document is willing.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Not aware of any nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
No

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No, but please note that there is an informative reference to draft-ietf-pim-3228bis. We have just requested publication of that, and it would be good if this document and 3228bis can be grouped together by the RFC editor to get the up to date references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
It will obsolete RFC 3376. Not sure about the metadata.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
These are covered by draft-ietf-pim-3228bis. Publication of that was requested on 2024-05-21.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
None

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
Several people, some of the more active participants, have voiced their support.
Some concerns were raised during WGLC related to fallback to older versions and
SSM. This has been resolved after a longer discussion. No other issues raised.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
There were some differences of opinion on whether it was necessary to add text on
fallback to older versions and SSM, after some discussion this was added. It
looks like we found a good compromise.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
There are many implementations of IGMPv3. This is updating that based on errata
and implementation/deployment experiences. The WG did a survey to get input.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
No

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, the document is in great shape. Only minor changes from RFC 3376.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
All areas should be sufficiently addressed by 3376, and this just has minor
changes.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Internet Standard. Not sure which attributes.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes. Not aware of any IPR for the original document. The author/editor of this
document is not aware of any IPR either.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Authors of the previous document are listed as contributors. We are assuming they
are okay with this. The author of the new document is willing.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Not aware of any nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
No

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No, but please note that there is an informative reference to draft-ietf-pim-3228bis. We have just requested publication of that, and it would be good if this document and 3228bis can be grouped together by the RFC editor to get the up to date references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
It will obsolete RFC 3376. Not sure about the metadata.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
These are covered by draft-ietf-pim-3228bis. Publication of that was requested on 2024-05-21.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
None

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/