Requirements for the extension of the IGMP/MLD proxy functionality to support multiple upstream interfaces
draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-05-13
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-05-13
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2018-11-09
|
08 | Luis Contreras | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-08.txt |
2018-11-09
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-09
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Contreras , Nicolai Leymann , Hitoshi Asaeda , Carlos Bernardos |
2018-11-09
|
08 | Luis Contreras | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-06
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | As discussed in today's pim meeting at IETF 103, I am returning this document to the WG. Potential future steps include (but are not limited … As discussed in today's pim meeting at IETF 103, I am returning this document to the WG. Potential future steps include (but are not limited to): (1) incorporate the requirements into a solution document, and, (2) use this document as a reference for the WG to develop a solution. It was decided in the WG meeting that this document won't be published in the IETF stream. |
2018-11-06
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-11-04
|
07 | Stig Venaas | Added to session: IETF-103: pim Tue-1350 |
2018-10-22
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-10-22
|
07 | Luis Contreras | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-07.txt |
2018-10-22
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-22
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Contreras , Nicolai Leymann , Hitoshi Asaeda , Carlos Bernardos |
2018-10-22
|
07 | Luis Contreras | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-31
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-06 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/DUe-SfbHlt2jf8hSsrcmpowNMKo/?qid=ab8b90c7de389c24ceb76f9efd0348bf Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. In general, I am not a big fan of requirement … === AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-06 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/DUe-SfbHlt2jf8hSsrcmpowNMKo/?qid=ab8b90c7de389c24ceb76f9efd0348bf Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. In general, I am not a big fan of requirement documents on their own -- if the problem is important enough then ideally there will be solution work done as well. I seem to remember some talk about potential solutions (as far back as IETF 92), but didn't find a clearly related draft (or one that references this document) in pim, mboned or even magma. I want to encourage the WG to take on work that addresses the scenarios described in this document. The document presents some applicable scenarios, which at times are constraint by assuming that "both providers offer distinct multicast groups" or that "only one of the upstream interfaces is active in receiving the multicast content" -- leaving the decision to be straight forward: use the upstream that provides the required group/source/service. I then found the resulting requirements relatively weak and general. For one, it seems as if the bulk of the requirements can be summarized as: - the proxy should deliver control messages from/to the user to/from the corresponding upstream - the proxy should be able to select an upstream based on the requested service (group/source combination, when applicable) or other criteria (e.g. load balancing) Those two requirements seem both generic and pretty obvious to me...and don't offer too many details; for example: Should the user be able to set the other criteria? Is some criteria specific to the proxy itself and it's operator (load balancing, for example)? The description (related to load balancing) talks about "split the demand, alleviating the bandwidth requirements", but the requirements mention "balance...as a function of the group", or "consider the source", both of which have no direct relationship to helping with the bw requirements. When the document does get into slightly more interesting scenarios, the resulting requirements are not as specific as I would have expected to later successfully build a solution that addresses them: - "should be able of rapidly switching from the active to the standby upstream interface in case of network failure, transparently to the end user" How fast is that? Is there something more specific that could be used to quantify? Does it depend on the application? Are there expectations on the network failure detection? - "decide...according to the situation of the user with respect to the service migration"...or..."according to the situation of the group and source included in the request with respect to the service migration." Besides knowing which upstream provides the service, is there something else related to the "situation"? At times the document reads like a marketing brochure... For example: "For the multicast service, the use of an IGMP/MLD proxy with multiple upstream interfaces in those switches can provide service flexibility in a lightweight and simpler manner if compared with PIM-routing based alternatives." flexible, lightweight, simple... Nice! But the requirements don't directly seem to address those qualifications or offer a way for an eventual solution to measure flexibility, simplicity, lightweightness (?). Another example: "it is now possible to implement channel-based or subscriber-based upstream selection". Based on the requirements, I take that to mean that we can select an upstream based on what the subscriber wants (source/group). However, I could also interpret "subscriber-based" as related to the subscriber him/herself -- is the intent that the proxy could take into account personally identifiable information (who I am or where I am, for example) when deciding not just which upstream to use but whether to even provide the service? Maybe I'm reading too much into that, but clarifying that there are no requirements related to exchanging or using information that would explicitly identify the subscriber him/herself would help. I have other comments below. Let me be clear. We're at this point of the process because the WG thinks there's value in publishing this document — I’m not pushing back. The objective of my comments are aimed at making this document the best it can be -- again, so we can build solutions based on the requirements. I think that in its current state, this document doesn’t provide valuable direction for those eventual solutions. I would like to see a revision to the document, or at least a response to my comments before starting the IETF Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. C1. The examples and scenarios are described based on 2 upstreams. I'm assuming that the requirements don't really change if it was more than 2, right? It would be nice if that statement was made at some point: "all this is applicable to 2 or more upstreams". C2. 4.1.1.1.: "Since the use case assumes that each provider offers distinct multicast groups, the IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to identify inconsistencies in the SSM requests when a source S does not deliver a certain group G." What does it mean to "identify inconsistencies"? What are "inconsistencies"? C3. PIM and PIM solutions are mentioned several times, but there's no reference. Please add some. C4. Same comment for "existing IGMP/MLD proxy functionality". C5. In 4.1.2.1, what's the difference between the first and last requirement? o The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to deliver multicast control messages sent by the end user to the corresponding active upstream interface. ... o The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to deliver IGMP/MLD messages sent by the end user (for both ASM and SSM modes) to the corresponding active upstream interface. C6. The case in 4.1.3 (Load balancing for multicast traffic in the metro segment) seems to contradict the assumptions in the previous sections: "both providers offer distinct multicast groups", "only one of the upstream interfaces is active in receiving the multicast content". I realize that the scenarios are different, or that the requirements describe different areas of (not necessarily concurrent) functionality -- it would be nice to be specific about that. C7. Security Considerations: "Apart from that, if proper mechanisms (i.e., implementation practices) are in place for channel-based or subscriber-based upstream interface selection, Denial of Service attacks can be prevented." Proper mechanisms like what? Please provide references. |
2018-01-31
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2018-01-30
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | This document now replaces draft-contreras-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs instead of None |
2018-01-29
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2018-01-29
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> |
2017-11-20
|
06 | 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? Informational. This should be appropriate for a requirements document. The type is indicated. (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 purpose of the document is to define the requirements for a MLD (for IPv6) or IGMP (for IPv4) proxy with multiple interfaces covering a variety of applicability scenarios. Working Group Summary The people that have been showing the most interest in solutions have been involved in writing this requirements document. At least a handful of other people have indicated support, and no one has indicated any issues with the document. Document Quality The document is informational and discusses requirements. There are no known issues. Some minor issues were raised in working group last call, and they have all been addressed. Personnel Document Shepherd Stig Venaas Responsible AD Alvaro Retana (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 reviewed the document as part of working group last call. The issues found have been addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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 additional review needed. (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, all authors confirmed that they are not aware of any 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? Fairly solid. The authors are active working group participants. A handful of other people have supported the document, and no one in the working group has any issues. (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review needed. (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). No considerations. (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. None, no formal language. |
2017-11-20
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2017-11-20
|
06 | Stig Venaas | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2017-11-20
|
06 | Stig Venaas | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-11-20
|
06 | Stig Venaas | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-11-20
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Changed document writeup |
2017-11-20
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Notification list changed to Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> |
2017-11-20
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Document shepherd changed to Stig Venaas |
2017-11-20
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2017-11-16
|
06 | Luis Contreras | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-06.txt |
2017-11-16
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-16
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Contreras , Nicolai Leymann , Hitoshi Asaeda , Carlos Bernardos |
2017-11-16
|
06 | Luis Contreras | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-30
|
05 | Luis Contreras | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-05.txt |
2017-10-30
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-30
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Contreras , Nicolai Leymann , Hitoshi Asaeda , Carlos Bernardos |
2017-10-30
|
05 | Luis Contreras | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-02
|
04 | Luis Contreras | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-04.txt |
2017-07-02
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-02
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Contreras , Nicolai Leymann , Hitoshi Asaeda , Carlos Bernardos |
2017-07-02
|
04 | Luis Contreras | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-09
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-07-08
|
03 | Luis Contreras | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-03.txt |
2016-07-07
|
02 | Luis Contreras | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-02.txt |
2015-10-19
|
01 | Luis Contreras | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-01.txt |
2015-07-08
|
00 | Luis Contreras | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-00.txt |