Subject: [pim] [PIM] PIM recharter

From: saeed sami <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 01:20:57 +0330

Hello WG,
As for me  i think it would be better if the new charter would allow 
working on new multicast protocols too.
working only around  PIM and specifically RFC4601 , IGMP, MLD wont give 
a chance to new multicast protocols or extensions of unicast protocols ( 
IGP multicast), while i think the new charter should be open to new 
ideas too.

For the past 13 months i have been struggling with the way the WG has 
been treating new protocols, because everything have been to be around 
RFC4601 to make it better or extend it, so no attention is given to 
other stuff.

If the charter dont allow working on new protocols, would you please 
kindly tell me or others like me, to which WG should we submit? my work 
is a new protocol ( PIM-NG) which is only based on PIM but it seems that 
because of the current charter no one even bothers to look at except for 
the chairs. now if the charter dont change, it seems that there needs to 
be another WG which i dont think will be a very good idea because this 
WG is already mature and has all the possible and needed potential to 
welcome any ideas regarding multicast routing protocols.

so i think working under one unified roof is a better choice for the 
future of multicast.

Thanks

---

From: Caitlin Bestler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:01:54 -0800

On 2/24/15 1:50 PM, saeed sami wrote:
> working only around  PIM and specifically RFC4601 , IGMP, MLD wont 
> give a chance to new multicast protocols or extensions of unicast 
> protocols ( IGP multicast), while i think the new charter should be 
> open to new ideas too.
>
> kindly tell me or others like me, to which WG should we submit? my 
> work is a new protocol ( PIM-NG) which is only based on PIM but it 
> seems that because of the current charter no one even bothers to look 
> at except for the chairs. now if the charter dont change, it seems 
> that there needs to be another WG which i dont think will be a very 
> good idea because this WG is already mature and has all the possible 
> and needed potential to welcome any ideas regarding multicast routing 
> protocols.
>
I agree.

In particular I am intending to propose new protocols optimized for 
rapid formation of multicast groups
within a server cluster for transactional purposes.

Raw L2 multicast forwarding tables can already support this model, 
albeit in switch specific ways.

I'm not going to presume that my proposed solution will pass the group. 
The whole point of going
through the IETF is to get feedback from people with different needs 
that could still be addressed by
a well-crafted common solution.

But my proposal is clearly out-of-scope for the current charter. We need 
to make  it clear that this is
*the* group to consider new multicast solutions. I think it is clear 
that tsvwg does not have sufficient
expertise on multicasting (or interest in multicast issues for that matter).

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:49:37 -0800

Caitlin:

Do you have suggestions for the charter text ? Something
that would be derived from any other successfull, more
"open" ended WG - maybe like TSVWG - would be good. I
have to admit i don't have the time right now trying to
figure out how TSVWG or others achieve this "openness".
In general i thought ADs are worried about effective 
execution and therefore like to nail down actual goals into
the charter...

I also am not sure how bad a charter change is. AFAIK it's
terrible if there are political infights, but if not, then
it can be very quick. As long as the responsible ADs sees
enough support in a WG to drive proposed new charter items
to timely conclusion, and as long as that work does not
derail other ongoing work, i think ADs usually are happy to
accept important work items on re-chartering.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 04:01:54PM -0800, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [email-masked]

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:29:08 -0800

Hi

> terrible if there are political infights, but if not, then

Yes, in general charters are not set in stone. They give us
direction and focus, but provided we are progressing well on
the charter items, I think we are fine spending some time on
discussing new ideas and that we hopefully can adopt them if
sufficient interest, and we are the best home for it. Of course
changes would need to be reviewed and approved, but normally
that isn't that hard.

The proposed charter has some text alluding to this. Perhaps
it can be approved, but currently it says this:

|Additional work items may be added with a recharter.
|
|The WG should discuss and develop new ideas related to multicast
|protocols and distributing of multicast-related information.  The WG
|must be explicitly rechartered to adopt any.

This explicitly says that we should look into new things. It's
just that we cannot decide to adopt some new work without getting
it reviewed and approved.

Stig