Subject: mboned: MboneD rechartering

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:32:22 -0500

Hello All;

I was thinking about rechartering recently. This was mentioned at the  
Vancouver IETF, but I have
seen no discussion on it on this list.

I reread the charter, which I append below. It seems to me that,  
after a period of relative retrenchment, multicast is again expanding  
in a number of directions, including "Triple Play" video transport,  
support in L3VPN environments, IPv6 and other directions. Global  
multicast routing at present is not in much demand, although I  
predict that that will change in a year or so. So, there needs to be  
changes in the charter.

However, rather than just giving my opinion and text for a new  
charter, I think it might be better to poll the community on this. In  
my current discussions with people in support of my presentations at  
SANOG 7, I have had some surprising (to me) statements from senior  
provider executives along the lines of "there definitely needs to be  
accelerated work in the area of QoS-enabled IP multicast and in  
particular
MPLS multicast. Scaling is one issue... , but I expect the IETF  
community to tackle this
adequately over the next couple of years.   Of greater concern is OA&M
within IP and/or MPLS multicast." Fortunately, I think that MBoneD is  
addressing OA&M (operations, administration, and management), through  
work such as draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-03.txt. However, this did  
get me thinking
about what the community needs from MBoneD, and how to find out about  
these needs.

I am currently reviewing draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-03, which  
described the results
of a survey of the community and ISP's. Here is a description of the  
survey :

          Current work in the l3vpn IETF Working group include the  
definition
          of requirements for Multicast in L3VPNs and the  
specifications of
          multicast VPN solutions. In this perspective, the authors  
of the
          requirement draft [draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts] are
          initiating a survey to better detail requirements, and  
especially
          scalability requirements.

          A summary of the results of this survey will be included in
          the requirements document which should serve as guidelines for
          solution design.

I think that this has worked well for L3VPN, and provided a much  
broader assessment of MVPN requirements
that just relying on those active in the list.

I would like to propose that the MBoneD WG do something similar to  
motivate its rechartering. I have a list of questions, but first I  
would like to see if there is any support for this on list, before I  
inflict my list on the group.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

The existing charter is appended below :

-----
The MBONE Deployment Working Group is a forum for coordinating
the deployment, engineering, and operation of multicast routing
protocols and procedures in the global Internet. This activity will
include, but not be limited to:

- Documenting deployment of multicast routing in the global Internet.

- Receive regular reports on the current state of the deployment of
   multicast technology. Create "practice and experience" documents that
   capture the experience of those who have deployed and are deploying
   various multicast technologies.

- Based on reports and other information, provide feedback to other
   relevant working groups.

- Develop mechanisms and procedures for sharing operational
   information to aid in operation of the multicast backbones and
   interconnects.

- Update RFC 3171/BCP 51 based on experience.

- Develop a roadmap informational RFC that describes the current
   IPv4 and IPv6 IETF multicast architectures, including
   references to the relevant IETF documents and guidance for
   implementers and network operators.

- Complete the MSDP MIB

This is not meant to be a protocol development Working Group.
_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:07:16 -0800

> - Update RFC 3171/BCP 51 based on experience.

	I'm not sure where to go with this. It really didn't
	accomplish the goals it was intended to address.

>   implementers and network operators.

	BTW, the MSDP MIB is done.

	Good start for a discussion.

	Dave

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 07:08:17 -0500

If we want to have a BOF in Dallas, we need to get to it :

February 13, Monday - Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working  
Group and BOF meetings at 17:00 ET (22:00 GMT)

I would support this and will talk with Greg about it tonight.

Marshall

On Jan 14, 2006, at 9:05 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote:

> On 1/13/06, Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Trying to spark some discussion on this,
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>> broader assessment of MVPN requirements that just relying on those
>>> active in the list.
>>>
>>> I would like to propose that the MBoneD WG do something similar  
>>> to motivate
>>> its rechartering. I have a list of questions, but first I would  
>>> like to see
>>> if there is any support for this on list, before I inflict my  
>>> list on the
>>> group.
>>
>> The idea could be useful in trying to get more operator input on what
>> needs to be accomplished.  The problem here compared to L3VPN is that
>> their work and survey was much more focused.  Getting useful  
>> responses
>> might be difficult.  It could be tried, of course.
>>
>> FWIW, I don't think the current charter itself is badly out of  
>> date at
>> the moment, it just is what we may not know well enough what needs to
>> be done on the field.  A survey or some other activity on operational
>> fora could help here.
>
> Perhaps a MBONED charter BOF would allow us some focused time on
> either gathering the data from the mic or creating a survey to be used
> to gather more data from those who don't get mic time.
>
> Greg
>
>> --
>> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
>> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
>> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:05:27 -0800

On 1/13/06, Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > I would like to propose that the MBoneD WG do something similar to motivate
> > its rechartering. I have a list of questions, but first I would like to see
> > if there is any support for this on list, before I inflict my list on the
> > group.
>
> their work and survey was much more focused.  Getting useful responses
> FWIW, I don't think the current charter itself is badly out of date at

Greg

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:16:06 +0200 (EET)

---

From: John Meylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:23:52 -0800

why do we need a BoF to discuss possible charter mode
for MBONED?  couldn't this just be slot in MBONED or
possible second MBONED session if necessary?

  john

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>>> motivate

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:11:15 -0500

Dear John;

My intention was to bring in a wider community of interest. I believe  
that Dave Kessens had
a similar idea at the mike at the last MBoneD (while it is not in my  
notes, IIRC he called for a BOF there).

I would agree that if it is the same bunch of people, there is little  
need for a separate venue.

Regards
Marshall

On Jan 17, 2006, at 11:23 AM, John Meylor wrote:

>> February 13, Monday - Cutoff date for requests to schedule  
>> Working  Group and BOF meetings at 17:00 ET (22:00 GMT)

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:29:51 -0800

I've asked our ADs to step in and tell us what they want
	to do. Let's wait to hear from them.

	Dave

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:31:10 -0800

On popular request, below follows my opinion ;-):

Last IETF, I asked the question whether this working group should
continue at all, and if there is a need to continue, whether the
charter needs an update or start from scratch with a bof etc..

I believe that the sense of the room, and also from what I have seen
on the mailing list, was that people believe that this working group
is not done yet. In addition, I believe that most people felt that the
charter needs an update but that no real dramatic changes would need
to happen to the charter. 

Based on this, I believe that doing a formal bof would be overkill.
We should probably simply book one long slot so that we will have
enough time to discuss working group business and spend time on a
charter update. 

I expect to be able to post a profile and call for nominations for a
new chairperson/people next week, so it should be possible to have new
chairpeople in place to guide this discussion before next IETF and it
will allow Dave to step down before the next meeting (as he
requested).

I hope that this makes sense, otherwise, feel free to propose a
(better) alternative plan.

David Kessens
---

> > >>>to gather more data from those who don't get mic time.

David Kessens
---

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:00:01 -0800

Thanks David! Sounds good.

Greg

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:42:53 -0800

Thanks David, much appredicated.

	Dave

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:00:01 -0800

Greg