Re: Simple Multicast - building a case for a BOF or WG

[Ken Carlberg <carlberg@time.saic.com>]

jon,

> we are interested to see if there is sufficient case to have a BOF, or
> even to propose a WG in the IETF - part of the case is the requirement
> that there is user dfemand (obviosuly other parts are
> feasibility and implementatiuon effort - both SM and Express have
> these)

on this last item, will there be an attempt to merge SM and Express,
or simply have separate protocols for each (assuming Hugh wants to
pursue the latter)?  and if the latter, then would it be better to 
broaden the proposed WG to focus on an altered multicast service model, 
of which SM and/or Express are reflections of these changes?

> again let me remind you: sm is evolutionary, not revolutionary, so

while i understand the point of view of the SM authors on this aspect,
what is considered evolutionary is still a subjective.  whispers from
others in the ietf hallways tend to feel that simply changing the API 
is grounds for a revolutionary label.

also given that the service model can be a candidate for change, it would
seem helpful for any newly established WG to put forth an accompanying 
interoperability info rfc that either supplements or replaces the same
draft document put forth by Thaler.

so to go back to your original comment, is there sufficient case to
have a BOF?  if something can't be provided (from either the user's
perspective, or the provider's perspective), and there is a nugget
of an idea (and an accompanying implementation) to address the problem, 
i would think that's enough of a case.  

gentle beings, let your arrows fly :-)

-ken