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

[christophe diot <cdiot@sprintlabs.com>]

>         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 :-)

for many reasons, I think we should first work on protocols that can be
deployed by carriers and ISP (some constrains that may not be those of
the application), and delegate to the applications more complex
problems.

>         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.

this is a consequence of the previous point. study application
requirements, experiences of carriers that have deployed multicast, take
into consideration carrier deployment constrains, and define one or more
models. from this point, defining protocols should be easy.

=======================================================

christophe Diot         | tel: 1(650)375.4539
Sprint ATL              | fax: 1(650)375.4490
1 Adrian Court          | cdiot@sprintlabs.com
Burlingame CA 94010     | www.sprintlabs.com
USA                     |