Re: Reacting to previous messages

[Jon Crowcroft <J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk>]

sorry - this should have gone to the SM list too....

i am very concerend that cisco seem to think that IETF WG proposals
that dont fit in with their "easiest path to product lines" are so
worth supressing.

when you have technical reasons to sugges  to the IESG (who get to
decide this) that this is a bad idea, please feel free to send them.

until then, i dont see the legitimacy of oppsoing a technical work
proposal. we have not had a single ISP say that this will de-rail
their curent PIM deployment - if one does say,m then that too would
constitute possible (although more debatable) grounds for ceasing and
disisting.

In message <1627.928302712@cs.ucl.ac.uk>, Jon Crowcroft typed:

 >>
 >>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
 >>

 cheers

   jon