Subject: [MBONED] multrans work dicussion, some thoughts.

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:52:16 -0800

as future AD and former multrans BOF co-chair I'm a little interested to 
see where this work has ended up and where we think it's going. Some 
thoughts.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition-01

has been revved since the last meeting, I don't think I've seen any 
discussion on it at all.

The dicussion of program guides and generically source discovery has 
been a persistent issue in the multicast problem space since orgination 
of work on it. I have come to view much if not all of it as misguided. 
the draft recognizes this to a certain extent in that section 3.3 is 
basically "do it out of band" e.g. it's the responsbility of the 
application/operator to make sure the right numbers are used in in the 
right places. that seems consistent with the traditional deployment of 
such applications.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-01

Regarding this document it was revved prior to the previous meeting 
iirc. to my mind sections 2 / 3 / 4 have a very different goal (teasing 
appart the problem space), Than 5 which appears to aimed at a proposed 
series of milestones, I think that the standard we would apply to 
chartering new items like the one's proposed there is significantly 
higher than for the rest of the problem statement.

Which gets me to a point I'd like to make, that transitional 
technologies that might be employed here are not really germain to an 
interdomain case, so while it's interesting to me personally if someone 
has a problem (s) and a solution(s) that we want to advance in support 
of that effort I think that's fine, interworking may not be the primary 
consideration given that these are walled gardens. transitional 
technologies with potentially long time horizons as solutions to near 
term problems as maybe not the most productive place to invest our time.

thanks for your consideration

joel

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:53:47 +0100

Dear Joel,

The problem statement document was updated in the last IETF meeting week. We hoped that after the discussion in the last meeting (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01738.html), a WGLC will be launched to advance this document. We are still waiting for this to happen.

Maintain or remove Section 5 would be one of the outcomes we are expecting from the WGLC.

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>De la part de joel jaeggli
>Envoyé : samedi 16 février 2013 00:52
>À : [email-masked]; Shepherd, Greg -- Greg Shepherd; 
>[email-masked] >> Lenny Giuliano
>Objet : [MBONED] multrans work dicussion, some thoughts.
>
>_______________________________________________
>MBONED mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:59:31 -0800

> The problem statement document was updated in the last IETF meeting week. We hoped that after the discussion in the last meeting (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01738.html),…
It would seem a little bit premature to launch a last call 2 weeks out 
from a meeting where it will likely be discussed.

  that said there's nothing preventing it from being discussed in the 
meantime.

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:08:33 -0800

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:59 PM, joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> The problem statement document was updated in the last IETF meeting week.
>> We hoped that after the discussion in the last meeting
>> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01738.html), a WGLC
>> will be launched to advance this document. We are still waiting for this to
>> happen.
>
> It would seem a little bit premature to launch a last call 2 weeks out from
> a meeting where it will likely be discussed.
>

..other than WG apathy.

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:55:54 +0100

>>   that said there's nothing preventing it from being discussed in the

Well there's a bunch of people who want this draft to progress. I'm one 
of those. I'm tired of always saying the same arguments every time. So 
I'm in "waiting for naysayers" mode. I suppose many others are in the 
same mode.

So here's the generic stuff: The problem statement draft is good. We 
should do multrans protocol work. Please go ahead. Thanks.

Simon

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:14:14 +0100

Dear Joel,

I was just recalling the situation from our side as authors of the document and reminded we were waiting for a WGLC to be initiated. 

Reviewing the document and providing comments is always encouraged.

We do really hope to see this document move forward. 

Cheers,
Med

>De : joel jaeggli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Envoyé : mercredi 20 février 2013 23:00
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; [email-masked]; Shepherd, 
>Greg -- Greg Shepherd; [email-masked] >> Lenny Giuliano
>Cc : JACQUENET Christian OLNC/OLN
>Objet : Re: [MBONED] multrans work dicussion, some thoughts.
>
>> The problem statement document was updated in the last IETF 
>meeting week. We hoped that after the discussion in the last 
>meeting 
>(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01738.h
>tml), a WGLC will be launched to advance this document. We are 
>still waiting for this to happen.