[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Reacting to previous messages




In message <199906011641.JAA13964@squirrel.cisco.com>, David Meyer typed:

 >>>> 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 models are not ones that require academic research - they requie
engineered protocols and then _market research_ 

cisco seems to think it has a monopoly on understanding what the
market wants, and is almost alone in consistently opposing even
talking about this.....(yes, juniper have also said they dont see a
need ,but they hardly sample a significant or different share  of the
user base).....
 
 >>	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.


we have repeatedly stated that we agree that de-fucsuging or
de-railing current multicvast work is a non-goal. maybe you werent on
the list when we said this. its obvious, and we would be stupid to
undermine current successes with PIM/BGMP etc.

if you did see this, then it is dishonest to represernt the SM effort
as attempting, intending, or even having this effect.

some people have offline sent me _technical_ reasons why the approach
may not be good - if yo uwant to object to an IETF WG forming, perhaps
a techjical argument would be more appeakling than vaue market speak
about  "de-focussing" and so on....i am very happy to hear technical
debates, but i dont believe cisco engieners (or others) any more
qualified than "academics" and "researchers" (to use quotes to
indicate the opften perjorative way that these terms are used:-)
to comment on markets and so on` ,

 cheers

   jon