Subject: Re: mboned: Comments to draft-ietf-mboned-rac-issues-03.txt (long message)

From: Hiroaki Satou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:24:39 +0900

Dear Christian,

Thank you for your feedback on draft-ietf-mboned-rac-issues-03.
Sorry for the late response.
Authors were discussing how to rearrange the ducument to this day.
We will update the draft by the cutoff date.

As you indicated the goal and scope of the current version, as well as
the draft's relation to draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04 need
clarification.  We plan to do the following:

1) Clarify the goal of the draft:
	to survey how current standards satisfy the requirements
defined in draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04, and to identify any lackings
in current standards which should be addressed by future solutions work.
mboned-maccnt-req defines requirements including those for (standardized)
user-based accounting capabilities in
multicasting similar to what are possible with unicasting.

2) Refine scope of the draft:
	No new requirements should be presented in this draft.
         Scope should be limited to the requirements for a "fully AAA
enabled" IP multicasting network, as defined in mboned-maccnt-req.

Related to the clarified goal and scope, and considering the comments
from you and other people we realize the organization of the draft needs
to be overhauled.
1) we will reorganize the draft to more clearly adhere to the order and
terminology of the requirements presented in mboned-maccnt-req.
2) we will include consideration of relevant standards that are not
already in the draft (and we especially need to draw on the collective
experience of the community on this part.)
3) we will offer more detailed discussion on how current standards can
and cannot address the various requirements
(e.g. broken down by multi-provider vs single-provider cases and
single-user vs multiple-users behind single receiver cases)

 > 1.2. I think the notion of "non commercial situations" should 
deserve some elaboration, especially because I don't see in the RAC 
draft what's really specific to the so-called "commercial situations" 
that could not be applied to "non commercial situations" (if any).

We will remove any discussion of commercial vs non-commercial.

Also you shared many detailed comments about specific sections in the
document.  These will be very valuable to us as we rework the draft.
Thank you.

And finally,  You stated: " I would rather encourage the publication of
a ture, service-wide, requirements draft that would not only describe
concerns about the identification and the authentication of receivers, but also
global, systemic concerns about the design, the deployment and the
operation of multicast-based services. " We agree wholeheartedly that
such work needs to be done.  Our goals were not so ambitious yet with
the mboned-maccnt-req, but we would like to discuss with you and the
community about such an undertaking.

Thank you,
Hiroaki 

_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/