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

[Michalis Faloutsos <michalis@cs.ucr.edu>]

> 
> Dave Oran had mentioned something interesting, which was that instead of
> a single protocol (or perhaps in addition to a single protocol), the WG
> come out with documents which are "this is how to modify protocol
> X to support this
> mode". So there could be one for PIM-SM, for CBT, for BGMP. So what would
> people think of producing "here's the delta from this protocol", rather than
> a self-contained protocol spec?
> 
> Radia


	I agree with Radia. 
I believe that a flexible protocol that can be "fine-tuned"
to behave like others would be of benefit.
a. different applications have "conflicting" requirements.
b. much as we believe we can predict the evolution of the
structure and the technology, I don't think we can.
  If anyone can, by all means, let me know :-)

	I also agree with the comment (Joe Halpern I think)
that a working group should not focus on a solution, but
more on identifying the problem. Of course, we can use
some protocols as platfroms or reference points, but it could
be unhealthy to imply that the WG "prefers" some protocols
apriori.

	Michalis