IGMP/MLD-Based Explicit Membership Tracking Function for Multicast Routers
draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-13
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-05-04
|
13 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-05-04
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2016-01-14
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Dead |
2015-12-31
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2015-11-01
|
13 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-13.txt |
2015-10-19
|
12 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-12.txt |
2015-10-14
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to aretana@cisco.com |
2015-10-14
|
11 | (System) | Notify list changed from pim-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-09-10
|
11 | (System) | Document has expired |
2015-09-10
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2015-07-24
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. Tag Revised I-D Needed cleared. |
2015-07-24
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2015-07-24
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | I'm returning this document to the WG for further editing and to change the intended status. |
2015-07-24
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD is watching::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed |
2015-07-02
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2015-04-30
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-03-25
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2015-03-09
|
11 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-11.txt |
2015-02-26
|
10 | Stig Venaas | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? IGMP/MLD Explicit Tracking is widely implemented and deployed, and we want to make sure it is done right without breaking any protocol behavior. We decided a standards track document probably is important due to the protocol details and the importance. (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 The document describes the IGMP/MLD-based explicit membership tracking function for multicast routers and IGMP/MLD proxy devices supporting IGMPv3/MLDv2. Working Group Summary The document has wide support, no one has raised any concerns with the document. Document Quality There are many implementations of explicit tracking already. They are not based on this document though, but they should be close in functionality to what is in this document. The document has been reviewed in detail by several members of the WG, some technical issues were addressed and many editorial ones. After the initial request for publication at the end of 2013, there were several comments asking for changes/improvements from the IESG (including Adrian the responsible AD). It took a long time to get these improvements done and the document was returned to the WG. Improvements have now been done and we had a new WGLC in pim. There appears to be no concerns regarding the changes, and as a shepherd I feel the document has improved. Personnel Shepherd Stig Venaas. AD Alia Atlas (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. The shepherd has been actively involved throughout the document history and reviewed most revisions. The shepherd was actively involved during the IESG review after the previous publication and believes the latest revisions addresses the concerns raised. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. It has also been reviewed by others. In a lot of detail by one other reviewer in particular. It has also now been reviewed carefully by several members of the IESG. (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 (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. No concerns. (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. Yes. Author has confirmed that there is no IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No (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? There is good support among the more active WG participants. The rest of the WG is fairly silent as in many other cases. (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. Only a warning regarding the date which makes sense. It will expire in a few weeks. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews 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. (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. No. (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 (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 5226). They are OK. No IANA actions. (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. None. (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. No formal language. |
2015-02-26
|
10 | Stig Venaas | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2015-02-26
|
10 | Stig Venaas | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
2015-02-26
|
10 | Stig Venaas | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? IGMP/MLD Explicit Tracking is widely implemented and deployed, and we want to make sure it is done right without breaking any protocol behavior. We decided a standards track document probably is important due to the protocol details and the importance. (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 The document describes the IGMP/MLD-based explicit membership tracking function for multicast routers and IGMP/MLD proxy devices supporting IGMPv3/MLDv2. Working Group Summary The document has wide support, no one has raised any concerns with the document. Document Quality There are many implementations of explicit tracking already. They are not based on this document though, but they should be close in functionality to what is in this document. The document has been reviewed in detail by several members of the WG, some technical issues were addressed and many editorial ones. After the initial request for publication at the end of 2013, there were several comments asking for changes/improvements from the IESG (including Adrian the responsible AD). It took a long time to get these improvements done and the document was returned to the WG. Improvements have now been done and we had a new WGLC in pim. There appears to be no concerns regarding the changes, and as a shepherd I feel the document has improved. Personnel Shepherd Stig Venaas. AD Alia Atlas (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. The shepherd has been actively involved throughout the document history and reviewed most revisions. The shepherd was actively involved during the IESG review after the previous publication and believes the latest revisions addresses the concerns raised. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. It has also been reviewed by others. In a lot of detail by one other reviewer in particular. It has also now been reviewed carefully by several members of the IESG. (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 (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. No concerns. (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. Yes. Author has confirmed that there is no IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No (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? There is good support among the more active WG participants. The rest of the WG is fairly silent as in many other cases. (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. Only a warning regarding the date which makes sense. It will expire in a few weeks. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews 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. (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. No. (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 (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 5226). They are OK. No IANA actions. (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. None. (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. No formal language. |
2015-01-23
|
10 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Dead |
2014-08-31
|
10 | Hitoshi Asaeda | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-08-31
|
10 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-10.txt |
2014-08-27
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Document was handed back to the WG after previous AD review. |
2014-08-27
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2014-06-05
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2014-06-05
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2014-03-05
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2014-01-23
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sarah Banks. |
2014-01-09
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2014-01-09
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD is watching from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-01-08
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Telechat date has been changed to 2014-01-23 from 2014-01-09 |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date has been changed to 2014-01-09 from 2013-12-19 |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom. |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - If the last two bullets aren't goals then why mention them? In particular, if per-host accounting can be built on this then … [Ballot comment] - If the last two bullets aren't goals then why mention them? In particular, if per-host accounting can be built on this then that does seem to imply that the routers will be sending this further (see the discuss point). - If routers were to log the information here then those logs would be privacy sensitive and that would seem like its worth a mention. I realise that you say that the information can be flushed on reboot, but it might be no harm to say that it needs care. - Please see the secdir review [1] which I don't think got a response. (It may have been mis-directed.) [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04371.html |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] I may be totally off target here, but I'll ask anyway since I don't mind looking silly:-) Does this specification mean that information … [Ballot discuss] I may be totally off target here, but I'll ask anyway since I don't mind looking silly:-) Does this specification mean that information about which hosts are subscribed to which groups will be sent further towards the source, compared to the situation that applied before this function is defined? If so, then there must be be privacy considerations that need to be thought about. In particular, if it used to be the case that all that left my local network was the information that someone is subscribed, but that this specification means that host-specific information will now leave my local network, then that's something that needs to be considered. If, however, that information is already sent towards the source of the multicast group, or if its only used by but not forwarded by the router on my LAN, then it seems like its not changing things from a privacy perspective. In that case, it might be worth making that clear, given the unfortunate name of the mechanism. Sorry for not knowing enough about multicast to know the answer to the above:-) |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - If the last two bullets aren't goals then why mention them? In particular, if per-host accounting can be built on this then … [Ballot comment] - If the last two bullets aren't goals then why mention them? In particular, if per-host accounting can be built on this then that does seem to imply that the routers will be sending this further (see the discuss point). - If routers were to log the information here then those logs would be privacy sensitive and that would seem like its worth a mention. I realise that you say that the information can be flushed on reboot, but it might be no harm to say that it needs care. - Please see the secdir review [1] which I don't think got a response. (It may have been mis-directed.) [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04371.html |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] For Benoît: lack of 2119 key words isn't proof of anything; one can provide normative text and define a protocol without using those … [Ballot comment] For Benoît: lack of 2119 key words isn't proof of anything; one can provide normative text and define a protocol without using those key words. That said, I'm with the abstainers here: I don't see it. From the shepherd writeup: "There are many implementations of explicit tracking already. They are not based on this document though, but they should be close in functionality to what is in this document." I have a two-part question: (1) Do those implementations interoperate with each other and with what's specified in this document, and (2) are those implementations likely to be changed to match what's specified in this document, and what would is mean to do so? |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-12-18
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] I'm with Brian (and Joel) here: how could two implementations inter-operate? As a prove, I searched for all instances of the RFC 2119 … [Ballot comment] I'm with Brian (and Joel) here: how could two implementations inter-operate? As a prove, I searched for all instances of the RFC 2119 keyword, and I found 2 SHOULD, 1 SHOULD NOT, and 1 MAY. Clearly not enough of a specification. As Brian put it: "internal implementation details that are needed to support explicit tracking." |
2013-12-18
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-12-17
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] given igmp/mld listening are a gateway function. and this draft appears to make no specific new requirements of hosts joining or leaving groups, … [Ballot comment] given igmp/mld listening are a gateway function. and this draft appears to make no specific new requirements of hosts joining or leaving groups, I wonder on what basis two implementations would be considered interoperable on on the basis of this specification. |
2013-12-17
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-12-17
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-12-17
|
09 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-12-17
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I have been involved in the discussion of this document for several years. For the most part, this spec really describes internal implementation … [Ballot comment] I have been involved in the discussion of this document for several years. For the most part, this spec really describes internal implementation details that are needed to support explicit tracking. In other words, it is unclear where in this spec there is normative text related to interoperability between two (or more) multicast routers. I don't see a need for this spec even though there are multiple (different!) implementations of the basic functionality. |
2013-12-17
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-12-16
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-12-12
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2013-12-12
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2013-12-12
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2013-12-12
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2013-12-12
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2013-12-12
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2013-12-10
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-12-10
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2013-12-10
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-12-10
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-12-10
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2013-12-10
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-12-10
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-12-19 |
2013-12-02
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-12-02
|
09 | Hitoshi Asaeda | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2013-12-02
|
09 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-09.txt |
2013-11-14
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom. |
2013-11-11
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Need to address Sec-Dir comments |
2013-11-11
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-11-06
|
08 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call (ends 2013-11-06) |
2013-10-29
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-10-29
|
08 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2013-10-24
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2013-10-24
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2013-10-17
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2013-10-17
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IGMP/MLD-Based Explicit Membership Tracking Function … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IGMP/MLD-Based Explicit Membership Tracking Function for Multicast Routers) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast WG (pim) to consider the following document: - 'IGMP/MLD-Based Explicit Membership Tracking Function for Multicast Routers' as Proposed 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-06 (this is a 3 week last call to allow extra time as people are preparing for IETF-88). 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 describes the IGMP/MLD-based explicit membership tracking function for multicast routers and IGMP/MLD proxy devices supporting IGMPv3/MLDv2. The explicit membership tracking function contributes to saving network resources and shortening leave latency. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | AD review ======= Hi, Thank you for this document. I have done my usual AD review to find any issues before taking the document to … AD review ======= Hi, Thank you for this document. I have done my usual AD review to find any issues before taking the document to IETF last call and IESG evaluation. In this case I have only a few minor issues that I have captured below. Since they are so small, I will enter them as IETF last call comments and we don't need to hold the work up any further at this time. Thanks, Adrian === I think your core reference [6] is supposed to refer to RFC 2236 for the core definition of IGMPv2. That RFC certainly matches the name of the document you have given. [Hint: idnits is your friend!] --- idnits complains about the 2119 boiler plate because you are missing a space in "RECOMMENDED","MAY", --- Section 1 contains a clumsy sentence To alleviate the problem, unsolicited report messages are transmitted the [Robustness Variable] times (defined in [2][3]). How about To alleviate this problem, unsolicited report messages are retransmitted a number of times according to the value of the [Robustness Variable] defined in [2] and [3]. --- Section 3 While *everyone* knows what S and G stand for, you should still say. |
2013-10-13
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-10-13
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-10-13
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-10-10
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-10-09
|
08 | Stig Venaas | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-10-09
|
08 | Stig Venaas | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-10-09
|
08 | Stig Venaas | State Change Notice email list changed to pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking@tools.ietf.org |
2013-10-09
|
08 | Stig Venaas | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2013-10-09
|
08 | Stig Venaas | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-10-09
|
08 | Stig Venaas | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-10-09
|
08 | Stig Venaas | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-10-09
|
08 | Stig Venaas | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-10-09
|
08 | Stig Venaas | Document shepherd changed to Stig Venaas |
2013-10-09
|
08 | Stig Venaas | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-07
|
08 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-08.txt |
2013-07-31
|
07 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-07.txt |
2013-07-15
|
06 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-06.txt |
2013-02-25
|
05 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-05.txt |
2013-01-28
|
04 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-04.txt |
2012-12-10
|
03 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-03.txt |
2012-10-15
|
02 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-02.txt |
2012-04-10
|
01 | Hitoshi Asaeda | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-01.txt |
2011-10-10
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-00.txt |