Thanks Alvaro for comment. I have made the changes as per your comment. And its being uploaded in next few minutes (Tool is throwing some error, so working on it to get it published).
Mankamana From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 11, 2022 at 7:35 AM To: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <manka...@cisco.com> Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org>, slitkows.i...@gmail.com <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) On January 13, 2022 at 5:11:26 PM, Mankamana Mishra wrote: Mankamana: Hi! Sorry for the delay. ... > Apart from that there were no concern from PIM WG . I'm sad because we couldn't find interest in pim to do a thorough review. I don't translate that into "no concern", but that is just a difference of opinion. I'm going to change my ballot to ABSTAIN as I still think that not requiring IGMPv1 contradicts the current IGMP standard. By ABSTAINing I'm basically removing my objection to the publication. > Open Question : > > Statements about IGMP V1, there was no concern from PIM WG or BESS WG either. > Do you want any thing specific to be mentioned in this draft ? I would be happier with the text as follows. [Because I'm ABSTAINing you don't have to change anything.] OLD> 10. IGMP Version 1 Membership Report This document does not provide any detail about IGMPv1 processing. Multicast working group are in process of deprecating uses of IGMPv1. Implementations MUST only use IGMPv2 and above for IPv4 and MLDv1 and above for IPv6. IGMP V1 routes MUST be considered as invalid and the PE MUST apply the "treat-as-withdraw" procedure as per [RFC7606]. Initial version of document did mention use of IGMPv1 and flag had provision to support IGMPv1. There may be an implementation which is deployed as initial version of document, to interop flag has not been changed. NEW> 10. IGMP Version 1 Membership Report This document does not provide any detail about IGMPv1 processing. Implementations are expected to only use IGMPv2 and above for IPv4 and MLDv1 and above for IPv6. IGMPv1 routes are considered invalid and the PE MUST apply the "treat-as-withdraw" procedure as per [RFC7606]. > Later inline for flag question, I have one way to handle this. Please let me > know your view and I can make the changes. I'm fine with that. Thanks! Alvaro.
<<< text/html; name="Diff draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-19.txt - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-20.txt.html": Unrecognized >>>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
