Re: Reacting to previous messages

[Tom Pusateri <pusateri@juniper.net>]

In message <199906011641.JAA13964@squirrel.cisco.com> you write:
>	David,
>
>	Notwithstanding the basic principle that the IETF should
>	resist the creation of new working groups, I'm concerned about
>	this statement: 
>
>>> A new WG is proposed precisely because there appears to be sufficient
>>> interest and motivation for exploring new models of multicast.
>
>	IETF working groups are not in the business of doing research
>	(and this is true of the IETF in general). IETF WGs have
>	tightly focused and well defined missions. They are chartered
>	for the purpose of solving/standardizing a well defined
>	problem. If we want to explore new models, let's do it in the
>	IRTF (whatever that group does), or in some other academic
>	forum.   
>
>	The IETF shouldn't go down this path. It sets a bad precedent 
>	for the IETF, as well as defocusing the other, more mature
>	multicast work that the IETF has undertaken.
>	
>	Dave

Comments wearing two different hats:

1. As a vendor of routing equipment, I haven't had any customers
   ask me to support any new models of multicast. Maybe others
   have seen a demand but I have not.

2. As a member of the multicast directorate, I find the multicast
   problem hard enough when all of us are working on solving the
   same problem. If the IETF splinters and we begin working against
   each other, we'll never get anywhere. I believe we should stick
   with a single host model.

Thanks,
Tom