Multicast Group Membership Discovery MIB
RFC 5519
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection
I am assuming that the issues are corrected that others have pointed out.
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
From Gen-ART review by Pasi Eronen. 1) Section 3: " All tables are intended for EITHER router OR host functionality as indicated by the name and corresponding description, although it is anticipated that there would be scenarios where both terms might apply to a device, e.g. a router which joins a multicast group also as a host for measurement purposes." At least in the case of IPv6, a router is required to join certain multicast groups, right? And even in IPv4, wouldn't a router normally join 224.0.0.2? 2) Terminology: The term "MGMDv1" (and "MGMDv2", "MGMDv3") is used in several places: does this mean IGMPv1, MLDv1, both of them, is this some weirdness caused by a search-replace accident? 3) Description of "mgmdRouterInterfaceProxyIfIndex" object: "Such a device would implement the mgmdV2RouterBaseMIBGroup" I can't find the definition of "mgmdV2RouterBaseMIBGroup" anywhere? 4) The security considerations section is a bit confused about what object belongs to what table. For example, to me it looks like mgmdRouterInterfaceVersion would be in mgmdRouterInterfaceTable, not mgmdRouterCacheTable? 5) The following objects seem to have read-create MAX-ACCESS, but are not mentioned in the security considerations section: mgmdHostInterfaceStatus, mgmdHostInterfaceVersion, mgmdRouterInterfaceProxyIfIndex. 6) There is no discussion about what MIB objects (if any) might contain sensitive information.
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection