Survey Report on Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Implementations and Deployments
draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-03

[Ballot comment]

I think it'd be fine to add the information from the
response to Sean's earlier discuss (copied below to
make that easier) into the security considerations.
That is, I'm suggesting to add a paraphrase of:

"FWIW, I am aware of at least two implementations (but I
expect there are more) where you can use IPsec to protect
PIM messages.

For at least one of them, IPsec is not part of the PIM
implementation at all, you just configure IPsec with SPDs
where interface, the ALL_PIM_ROUTERS multicast address
etc. can be used as selectors, according to RFC 5796."

[Ballot comment]
Christer Holmberg made a Gen-ART review of this document and had a number of editorial comments. Do the authors want to respond to those comments in some way? From my perspective, the comments seemed very reasonable suggestions.

[Ballot comment]
As Barry said, this is more for IESG conversation and not about this document per se, but I had the same reaction he did: Is there really a reason to publish interoperability reports of this sort as RFCs? Why not just put this information into the writeup for 4601's move to IS? I don't think there's any significant harm in publishing this, but it doesn't seem necessary.

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to publishing this document, I think it's a very fine thing for us to do interoperability reports, and I'd be happy to see more of them.  So take the following comments with that in mind, and also with the note that they're mostly meant for the IESG to ponder.

Will there be real value to this document a year or two from now?  Is there real value in having this as a snapshot, frozen in time, rather than as a wiki page that can be updated with new information and further experience?

Mostly, I think we should be publishing these sorts of things in more streamlined ways, and in ways that allow ongoing work on them.

But again, this is NOT an objection to publishing this document.  Just something I'd like us to think about.

[Ballot discuss]
Is there any information about whether the implementations actually implemented IPsec AH to protect against forged messages?  I'm guessing not but am really hoping to be wrong.  I ask for two reasons 1) (and I realize this one is purely selfish) because if PIM is widely deployed that will make it easier to move AH to Internet Standard and 2) we need to make sure that security can be turned on in protocols we move down the standardization path.

[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS for the shepherding AD and the WG chairs.  I will be balloting YES as soon as this issue is clarified.

I completely support the advancement of PIM to IS, but I am curious as to the logistics.  Is the plan to publish this questionnaire now and then publish a 4601bis draft to remove the (*,*,RP) and PMBR functions?  Does it make sense to publish this questionnaire now since there does not even appear to be a 4601bis draft in existence?

[Ballot comment]
Section 3 doesn't say anything, but I noticed that earlier in the document it was mentioned in section 2.3.2 that (*,*,RP) was not implemented in some cases due to security concerns.  If those concerns were real, might it be worth mentioning what they were in section 3?

There are a surprising number of page breaks in this document...  :)

[Ballot comment]
You went into some explanation of the process in 1.2. Even with some history (RFC 2026 versus RFC 6410). Fine.
However, I don't understand why you only listed 2 of the 4 conditions from RFC 6410

  Section 2.2 of [RFC6410] states that:"(1)
  There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
  with widespread deployment and successful operational experience. (3)
  There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
  increase implementation complexity."

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02, 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast
WG (pim) to consider the following document:
- 'Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments'
  as Informational
RFC

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 2013-09-03. 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 provides supporting documentation to advance the
  Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
  protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report/ballot/


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

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. It is specified as informational in the header. It is an
implementation report, and I believe Informational is appropriate for
that.

(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 is an implementation report that is being used as part of advancing RFC 4601 to Internet Standard.

Working Group Summary

The WG fully supports the process of advancing RFC 4601 and as
part of that doing a survey. This is the result of the survey. There
were a couple of minor comments that have been incorporated in
this final version. There is no controversy.

Document Quality

There was a lot of effort going into formulating the survey, this
document contains the results of the survey, and the document
has been reviewed by multiple people.

Personnel

Stig Venaas  is the shepherd. Adrian Farrel
is the AD.

(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.

I have reviewed this document. I found a few issues that were adressed
in the latest revision. I think the quality is good.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No. The content is fairly trivial as it just summarizes reports from a
survey. At least 3 different people have carefully reviewed the document.
They all had minor concerns that have been adressed.

(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. The only thing is whether there are any formalities regarding contents or format of implementation reports. It is important that this document
is sufficient as an implementation report for advancing 4601.

(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.

It's almost unthinkable there is an IPR on the implementation report.
Two of the authors confirmed no IPR. We were unable to get in touch with
the author from Huawei. However Mike McBride who is from Huawei don't
think they have one.

I sent an email to the pim WG asking if anyone has concerns about this
situation and no concerns were raised.

(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? 

Only a few people responded during the WGLC, but they are all
active WG participants. I believe it is sufficient as it is just the
results of a survey where both the survey and the results have been
presented to the WG before.

(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 discontent or any negative comments.

(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.

4 lines longer than 72 characters, the longest 76.

The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
They are from 2012.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Don't think any formal reviews 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 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.