-----

Notes taken in etherpad at https://codimd.ietf.org/s/notes-ietf-109-mboned#

Text (from 12/8/20) pasted below for reference:



IETF 109 (Online)
MBONED Agenda
Mon, Nov 16, 2020
14:30-15:30 ICT
Monday Session II, Room 4

Jabber Log: https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/mboned/2020-11-16.html
Video log: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FS3XqqWTw

Note takers: Sandy Zhang, Jake Holland

Status of WG items
Chairs, 5 min

    update from Mike on ieee802-mcast-problems: Several discusses addressed, some more still to do. They haven’t given up, should be done by next IETF.
    Lenny: changes aren’t substantive enough to require another WGLC, mostly clarifications, but there are many updates, right? Mike: yes, but there are many.

Multicast to the Browser: draft-ietf-mboned-ambi, draft-ietf-mboned-cbacc, draft-ietf-mboned-dorms
Jake Holland, 20 min

    Jake - Should we submit both DORMS and CBACC documents for a YANG Doctor review, or submit them separately?
    Rob Wilton - Assuming that they have shared context, then submitting them together makes sense.

draft-jholland-mboned-mnat-00

    Jake Holland, 10 min
    Greg - Question: it’s taking about IGMP but it won’t modify the stack, right?
    Jake - Answer: Yes.
    Lenny - Question: it’s not modifying PIM or IGMP/MLD?
    Jake - Answer: Yes.
    Jake - Question: Is there interest?
    Greg - it’s cool. You got directly feedback from operators and you solve them with a single clever tools, fantastic. I support the adoption.
    Lenny - it’s critical new, it uses mapping in the site.
    Greg - I support adoption.
    Show of Hands - Who supports adoption. 12 of 23 participants supported adoption, no dissent. Will take adoption call to the list.

draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover
Yisong Liu, 10 min

    Jake - Interesting, but what is the goal for this document. Is it meant to be information, or a BCP?
    Yisong - To provide general considerations for deployment.
    Jake - There are some assumptions regarding the signalling that I didn’t follow. Did you want follow up on the list? What is the main audience for this document.
    Lenny - Out of time, please take to list. Are you after WG adoption at this time?
    Yisong - No, not this time, just feedback.

draft-ietf-mboned-multicast-yang-model
Sandy Zhang, 5 min

    Lenny - This has previously gone to an early YANG Doctor and you have had feedback.
    Sandy - Yes, I have updated the draft based on the YANG Doctor review. Will also be reviewed by a YANG Doctor during WG LC. We would like more review/feedback from the WG.
    Jake - This document is already in production and deployed in several places. Is there any feedback from them?
    Sandy - This is available in OpenDaylight, and also in our controller. But only part of the model has been verified, and some parts have not been verified. Hence we would like more review.
    Jake - Please can you identify which parts are very stable and which parts need more review.
    Sandy - There are many parts included in the model. Some parts such as BIER is implemented in BIER project, other parts like TE tunnel just be added in the model according to the customer’s requirement.
    Lenny - Please take it to the list.

draft-song-multicast-telemetry
Mike McBride, 5 min

    Mike - is there are interest?
    Lenny - this does sound valuable, but what will IPPM think?
    Mike - Think that IPPM might be too busy.
    Mike - Ideally would have a problem statement draft done here, and then take the protocol modifications done in PIM.
    Jake - Sounds good to me +1 to taking it here.
    Mike - We would turn this one draft into two.
    Jake - Get confirmation of this in IPPM
    Mike - Will ping the IPPM chairs and if they agree then that is what we will do, if this WG is willing to take on this work.