An Interface Identifier (ID) Hello Option for PIM
RFC 6395
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
01 | (System) | Notify list changed from pim-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
01 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
|
2011-10-11
|
01 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
|
2011-10-10
|
01 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2011-09-07
|
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2011-09-07
|
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2011-09-06
|
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2011-08-30
|
01 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
|
2011-08-29
|
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2011-08-29
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2011-08-29
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2011-08-29
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-08-29
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2011-08-25
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-08-25
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
|
2011-08-25
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation. |
|
2011-08-25
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Approval announcement text changed |
|
2011-08-25
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2011-08-25
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-08-25
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] in Section 2.2: The value 0 has a special meaning for the Router Identifier. It means that no Router Identifier is … [Ballot comment] in Section 2.2: The value 0 has a special meaning for the Router Identifier. It means that no Router Identifier is used. If a router only supports protocols that require the Interface Identifier to be unique for one router (only making use of the Local Interface Identifier), then the implementation MAY set the Router Identifier to zero. Why is the last recommendation only a MAY? I would have expected it to be at least a SHOULD if not a MUST. This was originally a DISCUSS. A long thread with Adrian eventually convinced me that the text is phrased from the point of view of the field: The field contains a valid router ID. Under some circumstances it MAY contain zero. I still believe that there is a need of more clarity in the text and of explaining why there is no concern a receiver will get a garbage value and interpret it as a meaningful value from a sender that believes that Router ID is not relevant in the realm of the protocol run on that network. |
|
2011-08-25
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-08-25
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-08-25
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-08-24
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-08-24
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-08-24
|
01 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-24
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] 1. I suggest to mention also RFC 2863 as a reference for ifIndex. Both definitions (in 1213 and 2863) are valid, but 2863 … [Ballot comment] 1. I suggest to mention also RFC 2863 as a reference for ifIndex. Both definitions (in 1213 and 2863) are valid, but 2863 is expressed in SMIv2 and has slight changes in semantics (not relevant for this work). 2. In Section 2.1 The Local Interface Identifier MUST be non-zero. The reason for this, is that some protocols may want to only optionally refer to an Interface using the Interface Identifier Hello option, and use the value of 0 to show that it is not referred to. Note that the value of 0 is not a valid ifIndex as defined in [RFC1213]. RFC 2863 defines the InterfaceIndexOrZero TC which allows exactly for the special semantics of value 0. One more reason to provide it as a reference. |
|
2011-08-24
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] 1. In Section 2.1: The 32 bit Local Interface Identifier is selected such that it is unique among the router's PIM … [Ballot discuss] 1. In Section 2.1: The 32 bit Local Interface Identifier is selected such that it is unique among the router's PIM enabled interfaces. That is, there MUST NOT be two PIM interfaces with the same Local Interface Identifier. While an interface is up, the Identifier MUST always be the same once it has been allocated. If an interface goes down and comes up, the router SHOULD use the same Identifier. Many systems make use of an ifIndex [RFC1213], which can be used as a Local Interface Identifier. I believe that the fact that ifIndex is not guaranteed to be stored and recovered at reboot must be mentioned in the text. Actually RFC 2863 defines another object which is persistent at reboot (ifAlias) which could be used, unfortunately the SYNTAX of the object is different. It could be used in cases where persistency is required by subtyping the syntax of the object, but probably this would be an overkill. 2. In Section 2.2: The 32 bit Router Identifier may be used to uniquely identify the router. It may be selected to be unique within some administrative domain, or possibly globally unique. Is there any example of usage of globally unique identifiers? How are these supposed to be managed? 3. also in Section 2.2: The value 0 has a special meaning for the Router Identifier. It means that no Router Identifier is used. If a router only supports protocols that require the Interface Identifier to be unique for one router (only making use of the Local Interface Identifier), then the implementation MAY set the Router Identifier to zero. Why is the last recommendation only a MAY? I would have expected it to be at least a SHOULD if not a MUST. |
|
2011-08-24
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-24
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
|
2011-08-23
|
01 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot comment] Because the Router Identifier and Local Interface Identifier are more than 8 bits long, please specify their byte order. Although network byte order … [Ballot comment] Because the Router Identifier and Local Interface Identifier are more than 8 bits long, please specify their byte order. Although network byte order (the most significant byte first) is almost universally used, there are some exceptions, so it is important to spell this out. |
|
2011-08-23
|
01 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-23
|
01 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-23
|
01 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-23
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-08-23
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-08-23
|
01 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] <a complete and utter nit> I'd reorder sections 2.1 and 2.2. I would have thought you'd of talked about the higher order bits … [Ballot comment] <a complete and utter nit> I'd reorder sections 2.1 and 2.2. I would have thought you'd of talked about the higher order bits first. This is obviously non-blocking. </a complete and utter nit> |
|
2011-08-23
|
01 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-23
|
01 | David Harrington | [Ballot comment] ifIndex can change, especially on reboot or even during a hot swap, depending on vendor and model. Implementations/uers who choose ifIndex as an … [Ballot comment] ifIndex can change, especially on reboot or even during a hot swap, depending on vendor and model. Implementations/uers who choose ifIndex as an identifier should be aware of this lack of stability. Since ifIndex is mentioned as one choice of identifer, the document should point out the possibility of change. |
|
2011-08-23
|
01 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-22
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-22
|
01 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-22
|
01 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-21
|
01 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-19
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] 1st sentence of section 2: saying that this identifies the interface of a *neighboring* router is a tiny bit confusing, I suggest saying … [Ballot comment] 1st sentence of section 2: saying that this identifies the interface of a *neighboring* router is a tiny bit confusing, I suggest saying it identifies an interface on a router for that router's neighbors to use. Just checking: I'm guessing there's no need to do anything, but just in case - I imagine that ifIndex values are often sequential small integers and hence guessable and that the router identifier is often an IPv4 address for the router and hence known, so are there any possible ways to abuse the fact that anyone could easily guess an Interface ID? |
|
2011-08-19
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-08-14
|
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. |
|
2011-08-14
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2011-08-14
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
|
2011-08-14
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-08-12
|
01 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
|
2011-08-08
|
01 | Amanda Baber | IANA understands that there is a single action that is required to be completed upon approval of this document. In the PIM-Hello Options registry of … IANA understands that there is a single action that is required to be completed upon approval of this document. In the PIM-Hello Options registry of the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xml IANA has temporarily registered the value 31 for the Interface Identifier Hello option defined in this document. IANA will make the registration permanent and change the reference to the approved document. IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval of the document. |
|
2011-08-01
|
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
|
2011-08-01
|
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
|
2011-07-23
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2011-07-23
|
01 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <pim@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt> (An Interface ID Hello Option for PIM) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast WG (pim) to consider the following document: - 'An Interface ID Hello Option for PIM' <draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt> as a 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 2011-08-12. 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 defines a new PIM Hello option to advertise an interface identifier that can be used by PIM protocols to uniquely identify an interface of a neighboring router. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2011-07-22
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-08-25 |
|
2011-07-22
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-07-22
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call was requested |
|
2011-07-22
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
|
2011-07-22
|
01 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2011-07-22
|
01 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2011-07-22
|
01 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2011-07-22
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call text changed |
|
2011-06-21
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
|
2011-06-16
|
01 | Amy Vezza | PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01 ================================================= http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01 ================================================= http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Mike McBride is the document shepherd. I have personally reviewed the document, and believe it is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has undergone thorough review within IETF's Multicast community. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. I have no concerns. (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus within the PIM WG to publish the document. The participation has been with individuals from a variety of vendors and providers. The authors made minor changes based upon feedback during the wglc. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes. Normative references are all stable documents published as RFCs. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA Considerations section exists. IANA has temporarily assigned the value 31 for the Interface Identifier Hello option and IANA is being requested to make this assignment permanent. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not applicable. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. This document defines a new PIM Hello option to advertise an interface identifier that can be used by PIM protocols to uniquely identify an interface of a neighboring router. |
|
2011-06-16
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
|
2011-06-16
|
01 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Mike McBride (mmcbride@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
|
2011-06-07
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt |
|
2011-04-22
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-00.txt |