Re: Reacting to previous messages

[Liming Wei <lwei@cisco.com>]

> From: 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.

I thought SM represents the "easiest path to product lines", because
it is so "simple" ?

Also, where is that official announcement from cisco ?

> 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.

As to whether SM will de-rail the current PIM work, it is not that it
will make a dent on PIM, it is the amount of attrition from
non-results for most people. You might check how many companies are
deploying PIM (or maybe easier to check how many without PIM), and how
many companies are serious about SM including the authors
companies/institutions.

BTW, the name "Simple Multicast" is not exactly a representation of
the protocol machinery. E.g. CBT describes a property of its
algorithm, so is the name PIM. But "Simple Multicast" is a
substance-free name that makes RPF-flooding machinery look complex.

 IMHO,
-Liming