Skip to main content

Protocol Independent Multicast MIB
draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
10 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2018-01-10
10 Alvaro Retana Downref to RFC 3973 approved by Last Call for rfc5060-10
2017-05-16
10 (System) Changed document authors from "Raghava Sivaramu, James Lingard, Bharat Joshi, David McWalter" to "Raghava Sivaramu, James Lingard, Bharat Joshi, David McWalter, Andy Kessler"
2015-10-14
10 (System) Notify list changed from pim-chairs@ietf.org, dthaler@windows.microsoft.com to dthaler@windows.microsoft.com
2012-08-22
10 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2008-01-28
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2008-01-28
10 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5060' added by Amy Vezza
2008-01-25
10 (System) RFC published
2007-03-26
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2007-03-25
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2007-03-23
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2007-03-22
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2007-03-12
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2007-03-12
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2007-03-09
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2007-03-09
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2007-03-09
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2007-03-02
10 Bill Fenner State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Bill Fenner
2007-03-02
10 Bill Fenner New version submitted to handle details raised by Brian and Dan.
2007-03-02
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-10.txt
2007-02-10
10 Bill Fenner State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Bill Fenner
2007-02-10
10 Bill Fenner Note field has been cleared by Bill Fenner
2007-02-10
10 Bill Fenner Approved, but want to check with authors about the details raised by Brian and Dan
2007-02-09
10 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2007-02-08
10 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from AD Followup by system
2007-02-08
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call::AD Followup from In Last Call by Amy Vezza
2007-02-01
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Catherine Meadows.
2007-01-31
10 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a single mib-2
number for pimStdMIB in the Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2
(1.3.6.1.2.1) at …
IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a single mib-2
number for pimStdMIB in the Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2
(1.3.6.1.2.1) at the following location:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers
2007-01-25
10 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2007-01-25
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2007-01-25
10 Bill Fenner Telechat date was changed to 2007-02-08 from 2007-01-25 by Bill Fenner
2007-01-25
10 Bill Fenner [Note]: 'Re-issued Last Call for downref to PIM-DM.  Revised Last Call expires Feb 8.' added by Bill Fenner
2007-01-25
10 Bill Fenner Last Call was requested by Bill Fenner
2007-01-25
10 Bill Fenner State Changes to Last Call Requested from In Last Call by Bill Fenner
2007-01-25
10 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
Section 8.1, paragraph 6:
>    [RFC3973]  Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
>            …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 8.1, paragraph 6:
>    [RFC3973]  Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
>              Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol
>              Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, January 2005.

  DISCUSS: This appears to be a DOWNREF (PS -> Experimental).
2007-01-25
10 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2007-01-25
10 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2007-01-25
10 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2007-01-25
10 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens
2007-01-24
10 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2007-01-24
10 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sam Hartman
2007-01-24
10 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2007-01-24
10 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2007-01-24
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2007-01-23
10 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2007-01-23
10 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot comment]
Shouldn't this be labelled as "Updates: 2934" ?

RFC 3376, RFC 3569, RFC 3618, and RFC 3810 appear in the …
[Ballot comment]
Shouldn't this be labelled as "Updates: 2934" ?

RFC 3376, RFC 3569, RFC 3618, and RFC 3810 appear in the References
section but do not seem to be used anywhere in the text.
2007-01-23
10 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter
2007-01-22
10 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2007-01-22
10 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ted Hardie
2007-01-22
10 Bill Fenner [Note]: 'IETF Last Call ends January 25.' added by Bill Fenner
2007-01-22
10 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bill Fenner
2007-01-22
10 Bill Fenner Ballot has been issued by Bill Fenner
2007-01-22
10 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
Part of the issues in this COMMENT were raised by Bert Wijnen.

1. The document is part of a package that obsoletes RFC …
[Ballot comment]
Part of the issues in this COMMENT were raised by Bert Wijnen.

1. The document is part of a package that obsoletes RFC 2934. This should be mentioned in the header (if approved)

2. I wonder whether  [I-D.ietf-mboned-ip-mcast-mib] needs to be a Normative Reference. It looks to me that it is more a secondary reference for the obects where it's quoted, and mentioned more in relationship with the MIB module defined in  [I-D.ietf-mboned-ip-mcast-mib]. If I am correct I would suggest that this reference is moved to Informative, to allow to reduce the number of un-pubished Normative References and have th edocument approved sooner.

3. I see few read-write objects that do not state anything about expected persistence behaviour. I see that it is controlled by pimDeviceConfigStorageType. Might be handy to make a note of that in the object itself

4. When I see:
  pimLastAssertGroupAddressType OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX    InetAddressType
    MAX-ACCESS read-only
    STATUS    current
    DESCRIPTION
            "The address type of the multicast group address in the most
            recently sent or received assert.  If this router has not
            sent or received an assert then this object is set to
            unknown(0)."
    ::= { pim 25 }

  pimLastAssertGroupAddress OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX    InetAddress (SIZE (0|4|8|16|20))
    MAX-ACCESS read-only
    STATUS    current
    DESCRIPTION
            "The multicast group address in the most recently sent or
            received assert.  The InetAddressType is given by the
            pimLastAssertGroupAddressType object."
    ::= { pim 26 }

So dns is not used as type - would it then not also be logical to limit the InetAddressTypes to the set that at least fit into a max size of 20?

5. I do not see any text in the Counter32/64 objects about when possible discontinuities can occur? Does that mean only at reboot/restart? I would still mention that, so that it is clear to everyone.

6. I would use the term "notification(s)" instead of "trap(s)" throught the document/MIB-Module.
2007-01-22
10 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
Part of the issues in this COMMENT were raised by Bert Wijnen.

1. The document is part of a package that obsoletes RFC …
[Ballot comment]
Part of the issues in this COMMENT were raised by Bert Wijnen.

1. The document is part of a package that obsoletes RFC 2934. This should be mentioned in the header (if approved)

2. I wonder whether  [I-D.ietf-mboned-ip-mcast-mib] needs to be a Normative Reference. It looks to me that it is more a secondary reference for the obects where it's quoted, and mentioned more in relationship with the MIB module defined in  [I-D.ietf-mboned-ip-mcast-mib]. If I am correct I would suggest that this reference is moved to Informative, to allow to reduce the number of un-pubished Normative References and have th edocument approved sooner.

3. I see few read-write objects that do not state anything about expected persistence behaviour. I see that it is controlled by pimDeviceConfigStorageType. Might be handy to make a note of that in the object itself

4. When I see:
  pimLastAssertGroupAddressType OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX    InetAddressType
    MAX-ACCESS read-only
    STATUS    current
    DESCRIPTION
            "The address type of the multicast group address in the most
            recently sent or received assert.  If this router has not
            sent or received an assert then this object is set to
            unknown(0)."
    ::= { pim 25 }

  pimLastAssertGroupAddress OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX    InetAddress (SIZE (0|4|8|16|20))
    MAX-ACCESS read-only
    STATUS    current
    DESCRIPTION
            "The multicast group address in the most recently sent or
            received assert.  The InetAddressType is given by the
            pimLastAssertGroupAddressType object."
    ::= { pim 26 }

5. So dns is not used as type - would it then not also be logical to limit the InetAddressTypes to the set that at least fit into a max size of 20?

6. I do not see any text in the Counter32/64 objects about when possible discontinuities can occur? Does that mean only at reboot/restart? I would still mention that, so that it is clear to everyone.

7. I would use the term "notification(s)" instead of "trap(s)" throught the document/MIB-Module.
2007-01-22
10 Dan Romascanu Created "Approve" ballot
2007-01-19
10 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a new
mib-2 number for:

pimStdMIB

in the Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1)
at …
IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a new
mib-2 number for:

pimStdMIB

in the Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1)
at the following location:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

The IANA understands this to be the only IANA Action required
upon approval of this document.
2007-01-18
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2007-01-18
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2007-01-11
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2007-01-11
10 Bill Fenner Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-01-25 by Bill Fenner
2007-01-11
10 Bill Fenner Last Call was requested by Bill Fenner
2007-01-11
10 Bill Fenner State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Bill Fenner
2007-01-11
10 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2007-01-11
10 (System) Last call text was added
2007-01-11
10 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-12-19
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09.txt
2006-12-13
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2006-12-13
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-08.txt
2006-12-13
10 Bill Fenner State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Expert Review by Bill Fenner
2006-12-13
10 Bill Fenner Dave McW will spin the document based on Dave Thaler's review.
2006-11-14
10 Bill Fenner State Changes to Expert Review from Expert Review::AD Followup by Bill Fenner
2006-11-14
10 Bill Fenner New version has been submitted, so MIB Doctoring should be able to progress.
2006-11-14
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2006-11-14
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-07.txt
2006-11-13
10 Bill Fenner State Changes to Expert Review::Revised ID Needed from Expert Review by Bill Fenner
2006-11-13
10 Bill Fenner Waiting for new version that addresses my iinital review; then Dave Thaler to MIB Dr.
2006-11-13
10 Bill Fenner State Change Notice email list have been change to pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org, dthaler@windows.microsoft.com from pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org
2006-10-12
10 Bill Fenner
(web client failure, sorry)
3. cont
  - pimNeighborGenerationIDValue -> 4.3.1
  - pimNeighborBidirCapable -> bidir spec, somewhere
  - pimNeighborDRPriority* -> 4.3.2
  I …
(web client failure, sorry)
3. cont
  - pimNeighborGenerationIDValue -> 4.3.1
  - pimNeighborBidirCapable -> bidir spec, somewhere
  - pimNeighborDRPriority* -> 4.3.2
  I stopped looking after the interface and neighbor tables.
5. Order.  e.g., the pimInterfaceStatus is in the middle of the row, while by convention it is at the end.  The pimInterfaceDRPriorityEnabled object is far from the pimInterfaceDRPriority object.  Does it make sense to try to reorder these objects so that related objects are close, etc?
2006-10-12
10 Bill Fenner State Changes to Expert Review from AD Evaluation by Bill Fenner
2006-10-12
10 Bill Fenner
Ready for MIB Dr. Review.  I found 5 items of note:
1. StorageType or other spec for tables with creatable rows (RFC4181 section 4.6.4) …
Ready for MIB Dr. Review.  I found 5 items of note:
1. StorageType or other spec for tables with creatable rows (RFC4181 section 4.6.4)
2. Similar question for regular objects that are writable.  I'm not actually sure if this is in the review requirements, but it is a question - what happens if I change pimRegisterSuppressionTime, does it get wrtten to the config?
3. Several objects could use REF tags.  The ones I noticed:
  - pimInterfaceGenerationIDValue -> 4.3.1
  - pimInterfaceDRPriority -> 4.3.2
  - pimInterfaceLanDelayEnabled, EffectPropagDelay, EffectOverrideIvl, SuppressionEnabled -> 4.3.3
  - pimInterfaceBidirCapable -> bidir spec, somewhere
  - pimInterfaceDRPriorityEnabled -> 4.3.2
  - pimNeighborLanPruneDelayPresent, PropagationDelay, OverrideInterval, TBit -> 4.3.3
  - pimNeighborGenerationIDPresent -> 4.3.1
4. Compliance statements.  It's all well and good to say that all the groups are optional, but there is actually a syntax for saying "in this condition, these groups are mandatory."  I think you actually want 4 (perhaps more, uhoh) compliance statements:
  - ASM (making pimSsmGroup, pimRPConfigGroup, pimSmGroup required)
  - Bidir (making pimRPConfigGroup, pimSmGroup, pimBidirGroup required)
  - SSM (making pimSsmGroup required)
  - DM (not sure off the top of my head which groups to require here)
  The reason I say "perhaps more" is because there could be read-only versions of these compliances too, for implementations that don't permit PIM to be enabled/disabled per-interface or writing of the writable objects (such an implementation wouldn't be compliant with any of the compliances if they didn't subset the writable objects to say that read-only was OK).
2006-10-11
10 Bill Fenner State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Bill Fenner
2006-05-08
10 Bill Fenner Draft Added by Bill Fenner in state Publication Requested
2006-04-13
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-06.txt
2006-01-24
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-05.txt
2005-10-04
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-04.txt
2005-07-15
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-03.txt
2005-04-29
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-02.txt
2002-11-01
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-01.txt
2002-06-20
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-00.txt