Hiroaki Satou | 1 Feb 07:04 2006
Picon

Re: mboned: WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-02.txt

Dear Carlos

Thank you for your comments.
Sorry this took a long time to reply.  It took awhile to coordinate 
text on our side.

In answer to your mail, for both the authorization and accounting and
requirements, the solution is supposed to be run only over dedicated
access media.  We will make this explicit by adding a new section to the
Problem statement.

3.3  Regarding Access Media

The requirements defined in this memo apply to solutions run only
over dedicated access media between the user and multicast router (see
Fig. 1). IP multicast solutions with shared access media between the
user and multicast router are out of scope of this memo. Nevertheless,
some of the requirements in this memo defined for multicasting over
dedicated access media may also be relevant to multicasting over shared
access media.  Therefore in the interest of modularity and flexibility,
solutions addressing the requirements of this memo may also take into
account their application to multicasting over shared access media.

Does this satisfactorily address your comments?

Thanks,

>This may be somewhat an "outsider" question, as I was not on previous
>draft discussions, but may be that's what you are asking for...
>
(Continue reading)

Hiroaki Satou | 1 Feb 07:10 2006
Picon

Re: mboned: WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-02.txt

Dear Marshall

Thank you for your review and suggestions.Sorry for the amount of 
time it has taken us to respond.
I will respond inline.

 > ----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
 >  From:    Marshall Eubanks <tme <at> multicasttech.com>
  ...snip...
 >  Date:    Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:34:46 -0500
 >  Subject: Re: mboned: WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-02.txt
 > ----

<snip>

 > Note that unicast does not in general restrict the ability to reach
 > customers, it just allows for such restrictions. That is an important
  ...snip...
 > AAA be as modular as possible, so that, e.g., accounting can be
 > offered without requiring authentication.

Thank you, we have added a bit to your suggestion.  What do you think?

When a CP requires the NSP to provide a level of QoS surpassing "best
effort" delivery or to provide special services (e.g., to  limited users
with specific attributes), certain parameters of the CDS may be defined
by a contractual relation between the NSP and the CP.  However, just as
for best-effort unicast, multicast allows for content sourced   by CPs
without a contractual relation with the NSP.  Therefore,  solutions
addressing the requirements defined in this memo should  not make
(Continue reading)

Carlos Garcia Braschi | 1 Feb 10:52 2006
Picon

Re: mboned: WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-02.txt

2006/2/1, Hiroaki Satou <satou.hiroaki <at> lab.ntt.co.jp>:
> Dear Carlos
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> Sorry this took a long time to reply.  It took awhile to coordinate
> text on our side.
>
> In answer to your mail, for both the authorization and accounting and
> requirements, the solution is supposed to be run only over dedicated
> access media.  We will make this explicit by adding a new section to the
> Problem statement.
>
> 3.3  Regarding Access Media
>
> The requirements defined in this memo apply to solutions run only
> over dedicated access media between the user and multicast router (see
> Fig. 1). IP multicast solutions with shared access media between the
> user and multicast router are out of scope of this memo. Nevertheless,
> some of the requirements in this memo defined for multicasting over
> dedicated access media may also be relevant to multicasting over shared
> access media.  Therefore in the interest of modularity and flexibility,
> solutions addressing the requirements of this memo may also take into
> account their application to multicasting over shared access media.
>
> Does this satisfactorily address your comments?
>

Yes, it does address them completely.

On a nit level, I'm not sure if the term "shared access media" is
(Continue reading)

Hiroaki Satou | 3 Feb 07:26 2006
Picon

Re: mboned: WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-02.txt

Dear Carlos

>On a nit level, I'm not sure if the term "shared access media" is
>self-evident and perhaps the second sentence could be "IP multicast
>solutions with shared access media (like unencrypted WLAN or Ethernet
>bridges) between the user and the multicast router are out of scope of
>this memo". But for me it's difficult to say, as I started using the
>term "access media" as the most obvious.

A shared L2 is out of scope but not shared case such as VLAN user 
separation is in scope.
So we will revise descriptions.

Thanks 

_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

David Meyer | 3 Feb 15:46 2006
Picon

mboned: FYI -- [ietf-secretariat <at> ietf.org: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 65th IETF Meeting in Dallas, TX, USA]

----- Forwarded message from ietf-secretariat <at> ietf.org -----

> From: ietf-secretariat <at> ietf.org
> To: ietf-announce <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 65th IETF Meeting
>  in Dallas, TX, USA 
> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:00:01 -0500
> 
> 
> There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 65th 
> IETF Meeting in Dallas, TX, USA:
> 
> February 27th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00) 
> Internet-Draft Submissions 
> 
> All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday, 
> February 27th at 9:00 AM ET. As always, all initial submissions with a 
> filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be approved by the 
> appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced.  The 
> Secretariat would appreciate receiving WG Chair approval by Monday, 
> February 20th at 9:00 AM ET.
> 
> March 6th: Cutoff Date for Revised (i.e., version -01 and higher) 
> Internet-Draft Submissions 
> 
> All revised Internet-Drafts (version -01 and higher) must be submitted 
> by Monday, March 6th at 9:00 AM ET.
> 
> Initial and revised Internet-Drafts received after their respective 
> cutoff dates will not be made available in the Internet-Drafts 
(Continue reading)

Mike McBride | 4 Feb 01:04 2006
Picon

Re: mboned: Current status of draft-ietf-mboned-msdp-deploy-06 + several questions

> 	Could someone please clarify the status of the
> above mentioned ID.  From what I can see, it appears
> to be in "RFC Ed Queue" and seems to have been so since
> August 2004.  Is it likely to progress to RFC
> in the near future?

near? not likely. future? yes. I recall Dave getting a variance to the 
normative reference to experimental 3618 so don't think that's holding it 
up. Maybe pim-sm is the cause? (BTW, the pim-sm authors are valiantly 
working on the remaining IESG comments which may miraculously be completed 
before Dallas).

> 	Can I also ask some questions about it.
>
> I'm (mostly) interested in situations where BGP is not being used,
> and where perhaps routers are using various older versions
> of MSDP.
>
> I'm looking at section 2.3 (i.e. BGP not used).
>
> I can see and understand its explanation of how the
> customer/enterprise RP allows SA announcements
> that arrive from the provider's RP to pass RPF checks etc.
>
> [For instance if it had a single MSDP peering, namely
> with the providers RP etc]
>
> What I don't see though is text to explain
> how any SAs arriving from the enterprise's
> RP at the providers RP would pass RPF.
(Continue reading)

David Meyer | 4 Feb 19:25 2006
Picon

Re: mboned: Current status of draft-ietf-mboned-msdp-deploy-06 + several questions

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:04:53PM -0800, Mike McBride wrote:
> >	Could someone please clarify the status of the
> >above mentioned ID.  From what I can see, it appears
> >to be in "RFC Ed Queue" and seems to have been so since
> >August 2004.  Is it likely to progress to RFC
> >in the near future?
> 
> near? not likely. future? yes. I recall Dave getting a variance to the 
> normative reference to experimental 3618 so don't think that's holding it 
> up. Maybe pim-sm is the cause? (BTW, the pim-sm authors are valiantly 
> working on the remaining IESG comments which may miraculously be completed 
> before Dallas).

	Yes, it has a normative reference to the PIM-SM doc.

	Dave

> 
> >	Can I also ask some questions about it.
> >
> >I'm (mostly) interested in situations where BGP is not being used,
> >and where perhaps routers are using various older versions
> >of MSDP.
> >
> >I'm looking at section 2.3 (i.e. BGP not used).
> >
> >I can see and understand its explanation of how the
> >customer/enterprise RP allows SA announcements
> >that arrive from the provider's RP to pass RPF checks etc.
> >
(Continue reading)

David Kessens | 7 Feb 06:34 2006
Picon

mboned: Looking for candidates for (co-)chairing mboned


Dave Meyer has indicated that he would like to step down as
chairperson from the mboned working group.

As mentioned earlier, we plan on taking a nomination based approach to
find a new chairpeople.

The ADs have written down a brief profile for the WG chair(s). We
would like you to consider this profile and either nominate yourself
or other people that you think that would fit well in this role by
sending mail to the OPS ADs: <bwijnen <at> lucent.comand
<david.kessens <at> nokia.com>. 

It would be very useful, but not required, if you indicate in your
mail why you believe that you (or somebody) is a good candidate for
this role and you can perhaps provide us with some other relevant
information in the form of a short bio/resume.

We do not intend to disclose the names of the nominees in public, but
we will probably solicit feedback with various other people. If you
have a problem with your name being mentioned in this context, please
let us know.

Note that this profile is written for a somewhat ideal candidate(s).
We fully realize that such people are probably non-existent, so don't
hesitate to nominate somebody who in your opinion would fit this role
quite well but doesn't fit this profile 100%. The intent is to select
two co-chairs that can complement each other and work well together.

As for the profile:
(Continue reading)

David Meyer | 7 Feb 16:28 2006
Picon

mboned: Re: Looking for candidates for (co-)chairing mboned

	Folks,

	If anyone is interested in what the workload is (was), or
	any other aspects of the MBONED chair position, I'd be
	glad to discuss it with you.

	Dave

On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:34:39PM -0800, David Kessens wrote:
> 
> Dave Meyer has indicated that he would like to step down as
> chairperson from the mboned working group.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, we plan on taking a nomination based approach to
> find a new chairpeople.
> 
> The ADs have written down a brief profile for the WG chair(s). We
> would like you to consider this profile and either nominate yourself
> or other people that you think that would fit well in this role by
> sending mail to the OPS ADs: <bwijnen <at> lucent.comand
> <david.kessens <at> nokia.com>. 
> 
> It would be very useful, but not required, if you indicate in your
> mail why you believe that you (or somebody) is a good candidate for
> this role and you can perhaps provide us with some other relevant
> information in the form of a short bio/resume.
> 
> We do not intend to disclose the names of the nominees in public, but
> we will probably solicit feedback with various other people. If you
> have a problem with your name being mentioned in this context, please
(Continue reading)

Dave Price | 7 Feb 16:36 2006
Picon

Re: mboned: Current status of draft-ietf-mboned-msdp-deploy-06 + several questions

Dear David, Mike and All,

	Thanks for answers to my queries re above.
Dave Price

_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/


Gmane