Skip to main content

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