Subject: [MBONED] Revised Charter for Consideration

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:42:48 -0500

As you may remember, in December we circulated a draft charter, which  
engendered 32 emails from 11 individuals on the mail list. Of those  
who expressed an opinion about the Charter, there were 6 in favor and  
2 against, which we feel is sufficient to declare rough consensus, at  
least on that draft.

Hiroshi and I had an teleconference this morning about MBONED and we  
discussed the Charter with our AD's. On the basis of this, a  
paragraph was added, saying

While the Working Group is not explicitly chartered to develop  
protocols it has in the past and may in the future work on Multicast  
protocols (such as Mtrace) that are not assigned to another working  
group. The Working Group will not entertain protocols under active  
development by other Working Groups of the IETF.

In addition, we incorporated wording suggestions from the list and  
corrected some other wording issues. The newly revised charter is at

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/mboned-0.pdf

We would like to have this before the IESG after this meeting, so we  
would like to get final consensus on this draft. Please

- if you have not spoken up in favor or against, please do so.  
Consider this a working group last call on this matter.
- Of course, please send any suggestions, textual improvements, etc.,  
to the list as well.

This will be discussed in Philadelphia as part of the general  
discussion.

Regards
Marshall & Hiroshi

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: "John Meylor (jmeylor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:05:37 -0800

Marshall, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:43 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MBONED] Revised Charter for Consideration
> 
> As you may remember, in December we circulated a draft 
> charter, which engendered 32 emails from 11 individuals on 
> the mail list. Of those who expressed an opinion about the 
> Charter, there were 6 in favor and
> 2 against, which we feel is sufficient to declare rough 
> consensus, at least on that draft.
> 
> Hiroshi and I had an teleconference this morning about MBONED 
> and we discussed the Charter with our AD's. On the basis of 
> this, a paragraph was added, saying
> 
> While the Working Group is not explicitly chartered to 
> develop protocols it has in the past and may in the future 
> work on Multicast protocols (such as Mtrace) that are not 
> assigned to another working group. The Working Group will not 
> entertain protocols under active development by other Working 
> Groups of the IETF.

define "entertain".  certainly the working group will entertain
discussions on protocols in all other WGs regarding their impact on
deployment, as it has with mBGP, MSDP, IGMP, SDP, etc, correct ?   The
working group may also contribute drafts/RFCs which provide deployment
guidance related to protocols being worked in other WGs.

 john

> 
> In addition, we incorporated wording suggestions from the 
> list and corrected some other wording issues. The newly 
> revised charter is at
> 
> We would like to have this before the IESG after this 
> meeting, so we would like to get final consensus on this draft. Please
> 
> - Of course, please send any suggestions, textual 
> improvements, etc., to the list as well.
>

---

From: "John Meylor (jmeylor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:05:37 -0800

Marshall, 

 john

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:56:24 -0500

On Mar 3, 2008, at 12:05 PM, John Meylor (jmeylor) wrote:

>> enFrom [email-masked]  Mon Mar  3 10:56:48 2008
From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:56:24 -0500
To: "John Meylor (jmeylor)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Revised Charter for Consideration
Sender: [email-masked]

> guidance related to protocols being worked in other WGs.

How about

The Working Group will not develop protocols under active development  
by other Working Groups of the IETF.

Marshall

tertain protocols under active development by other Working
> guidance related to protocols being worked in other WGs.

How about

The Working Group will not develop protocols under active development  
by other Working Groups of the IETF.

Marshall

---

From: "John Meylor (jmeylor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:41:05 -0800

Marshall,

> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: John Meylor (jmeylor)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> charter, which 
> The Working Group will not develop protocols under active 

does that need to be said?  isn't that an assumed fact for all WG's ?

my point above was referring to the statement that MBONED "will not
entertain protocols under development.."

if "entertain" was meant to refer to the design of protocols already
being developed within another WG, then I'm saying that it's assumed
that all WG's are supposed to avoid this, and so the statement isn't
unique to MBONED charter and should be removed.

and if "entertain" was meant to refer to discussion within MBONED of
protocols in other WGs in order to provide operational and deployment
review, and possibilty the development within MBONED of drafts on any
operational or deployment implication of protocols being developed in
other WGs, then the statement is wrong and should be removed

 john

> meeting, so we 
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailnsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [email-masked]
Errors-To: [email-masked]

Marshall,

> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: John Meylor (jmeylor)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> charter, which 
> The Working Group will not develop protocols under active 

does that need to be said?  isn't that an assumed fact for all WG's ?

my point above was referring to the statement that MBONED "will not
entertain protocols under development.."

if "entertain" was meant to refer to the design of protocols already
being developed within another WG, then I'm saying that it's assumed
that all WG's are supposed to avoid this, and so the statement isn't
unique to MBONED charter and should be removed.

and if "entertain" was meant to refer to discussion within MBONED of
protocols in other WGs in order to provide operational and deployment
review, and possibilty the development within MBONED of drafts on any
operational or deployment implication of protocols being developed in
other WGs, then the statement is wrong and should be removed

 john

> meeting, so we 

man/listinfo/mboned

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:12:23 -0800

> by other Working Groups of the IETF.

To be honest, I think it is a feature that MBONED has and can develop  
protocols. I think having operators help with protocol design is a  
feature as well.

Dino

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:12:23 -0800

Dino

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:00:20 -0500

> protocols (such as Mtrace) that are not assigned From [email-masked]  Mon Mar  3 18:00:45 2008
To: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Comments: In-reply-to Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
	message dated "Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:42:48 -0500."
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:00:20 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Revised Charter for Consideration
Sender: [email-masked]

> development by other Working Groups of the IETF.

Can you explain why this is needed? That is, "what problem does adding
this text solve?"

What comes to my mind when I read these words is "nuisance magnate",
in that it can be read as an open call to take on development of new
protocols. It is an unscoped invitation to take on additional,
unspecified work.

While it might be fine to take on some such work in the future, the
real question is "what is the criteria for taking on protocol work?"
To what does the WG say yes and when does it say no?

If you want to include such a line, it would be helpful to put more
scope around what the WG will consider and what it won't, and what
criteria need to be shown before making something a WG item.

Thomas

to another working  
> development by other Working Groups of the IETF.

Can you explain why this is needed? That is, "what problem does adding
this text solve?"

What comes to my mind when I read these words is "nuisance magnate",
in that it can be read as an open call to take on development of new
protocols. It is an unscoped invitation to take on additional,
unspecified work.

While it might be fine to take on some such work in the future, the
real question is "what is the criteria for taking on protocol work?"
To what does the WG say yes and when does it say no?

If you want to include such a line, it would be helpful to put more
scope around what the WG will consider and what it won't, and what
criteria need to be shown before making something a WG item.

Thomas

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:19:24 -0500

> Can you explain why this is needed? That is, "what problem does adding

The AD's suggested it because MBONED has a history of doing some  
protocol
design work.

> protocols. It is an unscoped invitation to take on additional,

That is not the intention at all. The AD's wanted to limit the scope,  
not
open it up.

> criteria need to be shown before making something a WG item.

That is a reasonable matter for discussion. Do you have any  
suggestion for this wording ?

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:19:24 -0500

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:52:02 +0000

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:00:20PM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
> scope aroFrom [email-masked]  Wed Mar  5 08:53:15 2008
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:52:02 +0000
From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
To: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Revised Charter for Consideration
Sender: [email-masked]

> criteria need to be shown before making something a WG item.

It seems that proposals like mtrace and ssmping are diagnostic/troubleshooting
tools that are being documented.   

I wouldn't want to speak for Stig, but from what I have seen in terms of
discussion of his ssmping draft, the tool itself has been significantly
improved by feedback from the WG.   It is now documented such that someone
else could implement an interoperable client/server.    While this wouldn't
be necessary for the OS platforms Stig already supports, the spec is
now there should a router vendor (for example :) want to support it.

So one strawman scope would be definition of tools to assist in multicast
administration and troubleshooting.

Which reminds me, is an updated guide to multicast troubleshooting itself
on the new charter?

-- 
Tim

und what the WG will consider and what it won't, and what
> criteria need to be shown before making something a WG item.

It seems that proposals like mtrace and ssmping are diagnostic/troubleshooting
tools that are being documented.   

I wouldn't want to speak for Stig, but from what I have seen in terms of
discussion of his ssmping draft, the tool itself has been significantly
improved by feedback from the WG.   It is now documented such that someone
else could implement an interoperable client/server.    While this wouldn't
be necessary for the OS platforms Stig already supports, the spec is
now there should a router vendor (for example :) want to support it.

So one strawman scope would be definition of tools to assist in multicast
administration and troubleshooting.

Which reminds me, is an updated guide to multicast troubleshooting itself
on the new charter?

-- 
Tim

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:08:34 -0500

> Which reminds me, is an updated guide to multicast troubleshooting  

Yes, as

  update the very old troubleshooting guidelines for ASM and SSM  
multicast services

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:08:34 -0500

Yes, as

Regards
Marshall

---

From: "John Meylor (jmeylor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:27:00 -0800

Marshall, 

> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:19 AM
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: [email-masked]
> The AD's suggested it because MBONED has a history of doing 
> some protocol design work.

It is useful to clarify that that protocol design work has been done and
may still occur in MBONED, mostly for the benefit of folks who don't
typically participate in MBONED.

The verbage on "not entertaining protocols..." isn't unique to MBONED,
and not appropriate in this charter. 

 john

---

From: "John Meylor (jmeylor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:27:00 -0800

Marshall, 

 john

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:01:10 -0800

Tim, i think what you are saying (troubleshooting stuff) is
hopefully pretty uncontentuous, but i am not sure if it is inclusive
enough:

One of the IETF problems is the process overhead in the IETF
to create a working group around whatever might be a multicast
specific protocol element of limited scope. It is usually much 
easier to get good feedback and the right experience set of people
without creating additional overhead by using MBoned. This is
also due to set of WGs in existance on the protocol side.

So, for example: How would you define why AMT is within the
scope of MBoned, and/or would i need to create a new
working group if we wanted to define extensions to IGMP ?

Obviously, if there already is a better working group to bring
in multicast protocol functionality, then we should of course
try to use those groups. Heck, don't get me started on how
multicast is being often ignored in protocol working groups
whose scope says nothing about "we're unicast only ", but that often
work that way (no, i am not going to name names, no flame war
intended, just a broad stroke against multicast ignorers ;-)

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [email-masked]
Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture
"The strategy is what you do, not what you write" - Wesley Clark
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:01:10 -0800

Cheers
    Toerless

---

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:24:46 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

-) >
-) > While it might be fine to take on some such work in the future, the
-) > real question is "what is the criteria for taking on protocol work?"
-) > To wFrom [email-masked]  Thu Mar  6 21:26:18 2008
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:24:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
To: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Cc: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Revised Charter for Consideration
Sender: [email-masked]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

-) >
-) > While it might be fine to take on some such work in the future, the
-) > real question is "what is the criteria for taking on protocol work?"
-) > To what does the WG say yes and when does it say no?
-) >
-) > If you want to include such a line, it would be helpful to put more
-) > scope around what the WG will consider and what it won't, and what
-) > criteria need to be shown before making something a WG item.
-) 
-) That is a reasonable matter for discussion. Do you have any  
-) suggestion for this wording ?
-) 

Marshall- I agree it is important to specifically note that this is an 
operationally-focused WG and shouldn't be in the business of developing 
protocols for which protocol WGs such as PIM are responsible, while still 
allowing for operational tshooting and transitional protocols like Mtrace 
and AMT which this WG is best suited for.  How about taking what is in the 
charter now and adding a little more specificity:

"This is not meant to be a protocol development Working Group for group 
membership or multicast/unicast routing protocols."
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

hat does the WG say yes and when does it say no?
-) >
-) > If you want to include such a line, it would be helpful to put more
-) > scope around what the WG will consider and what it won't, and what
-) > criteria need to be shown before making something a WG item.
-) 
-) That is a reasonable matter for discussion. Do you have any  
-) suggestion for this wording ?
-) 

Marshall- I agree it is important to specifically note that this is an 
operationally-focused WG and shouldn't be in the business of developing 
protocols for which protocol WGs such as PIM are responsible, while still 
allowing for operational tshooting and transitional protocols like Mtrace 
and AMT which this WG is best suited for.  How about taking what is in the 
charter now and adding a little more specificity:

"This is not meant to be a protocol development Working Group for group 
membership or multicast/unicast routing protocols."
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 01:16:38 +0100

i would state things in a positive way. something like "this group has
in a charge development of tools, including protocols, for multicast
routing operation and administrations (as developed by dedicated
multicast routing protocol groups)." 

thanks,
-d.
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Leonard Giuliano
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 6:25 AM
> To: Marshall Eubanks
> Cc: Thomas Narten; [email-masked]

---

From: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 01:16:38 +0100

thanks,
-d.