[MBONED] Minutes 9:00 Dave Meyer did agenda bashing. No further points requirested. 9:10 Mike McBride presented MSDP BCP, draft-ietf-mboned-msdp-deploy-01.txt added security section since -00 of the draft, Bill Bickless did work on filtering. Dave raised the question wether the BCP would at one point be updated to include scenarios for the current (-13/-14) version of the MSDP spec. Mike explained that the current version of the BCP only addresses recommendations for currently deployed -0x versions. Dave asked wether the normative reerences in the BCP would need to be resolved. Randy said that as long as the references are not refernced for implementation, this would not be an issue. 9:17 Bill Bickless presents draft-nickless-ipv4-mcast-unusable-01.txt. The draft addresses which multicast group and active source information needs to be filtered intra- and inter domain. Additions from mailing list proposed for -02 of the draft: Add Sun NIS+, nbc-pro, HP Device Discovery, BSD rwho. Refereces to Bill Manning's DSUA Document. Randy Bush pointed to another draft iana-special-... Dave asked about deprecated ip multicast addresses. He wants to take that section and stick it into the address assignment draft/next version RFC. Yiquin raised the question of flooding based on layer3 addresses by newer hardware. Collin warned that there is a difference between tactical filtering because of broken applications and the longer term structural filtering needed, and that this should be explicitly pointed out to avoid longer term filtering of tactic filters. Dave proposed that the non-allocation of global addresses to private applications should be described on a way in the document that would allow the IANA to refer to it whenever such requests are brought up by application developrs. Toerless suggested that BCP information for default admin scope ranges beyond those defined in the current address asignment RFC should be considered. Dave agreed that this document should become a working group document. 9:38 Dave reported from the MSDP Design Team -- SOW. Nothin happened. MSDP draft-13 is not bacward compatible, which violates a fundamental design principle. Caching was brought in. Dave Thaler wanted to have a section written on notification which Dino wanted to be simplified. Peer RPF rules and their wording is discussed over and over again. Generalization of mesh-group forwarding rules especially the cross-mesh-group forwarding rules are discussed. Default route (default peer) was brought in. SA request language is contentious (brought into the spec early by Jeremy - wanted to build a cache box to request SAs)). Language on MRIB and RPF route was discussed but nobody felt comfortable to provide more expicit detail. MP/MPP notation in the peer RPF riles. Maximum MTU was changed. Other problems ??? Encapsulation, sending of initial packets, .. Discussion: Toerless suggested that the above list and details should be written down in a "History of MSDP" text/rfc. Toerless asked why there is no experimental RFC for the implementations that are out there working and interoperate with each other. Dave responded that nobody has written that draft, and that he is not going to write it because of the amount of work involved. Randy said that the MSDP RFC process is not going anywhere, and that this was the opinion in the IESG. Bill Nickless reminded that one of the issues with MSDP is that it tried to realize the RFC1112 service model with too much effort and for this reason failed to deliver. Dave reminded that if a current-implementation RFC is to be published the question about the above raised points is still open and needed to be answered in some way or the other. Peter Lothberg suggested to open a working group to define the components for content distribution with IP multicast being one of them. Lorenzo said that MSDP paths can today not be used for reliable multicast paths. Interdomain exchanges are also a problem independent of MSDP. Dave summarized on proposed actions: 1. Need to publish -06+ draft (MSDP wg agenda). Bill and Mike volunteered to put cycles in. 2. MBoned should put together recommendations for the IESG in the form of the gap analysis (MBoned agenda). This was agreed upon by the WG. 10:03 EOM