All things related to multicast

[David Meyer <>]

>> >>So are you in favor of just leaving MSDP where it is (i.e.,
>> >>shutting down the WG and publishing what we have as experimental
>> >>or informational or?).
>> 
>> Any MSDP standard that requires changes from what is being done
>> today is, I think, a bad thing.
>> 
>> Therefore, as many problems (read: tradeoffs) as MSDP, as deployed,
>> has today, it should be given in an RFC...  now whether it is
>> informational, historical, or experimental, doesn't really matter.
>> 
>> Done.

Oh, great. Please submit the draft to the MSDP working group.

>> Next question is whether to continue effort to standardize a 
>> better version of MSDP.  My opinion:  it doesn't really matter.
>> In fact, if it were standardized, it would probably do harm, e.g.
>> create confusion technically and WHO knows what the marketing folks
>> would do.  So maybe my opinion is to just drop it.
>> 
>> Done.

There's more to it than that Kevin. The IETF is a consensus based
organization, and not everyone agrees with you. If you believe
this you should contact Alex Zinin 
()
 and ask him to
shut down the MSDP WG. He can do that if he decides it is the
right thing to do. 


>> Next issue that john z. has brought up so eloquently:  the multicast
>> community really needs to get behind SSM.  Really...  REALLY!
>> 
>> >From an Internet2 perspective, John Brassil is maintaining a
>> "list of sources" page 
>> (http://multicast.internet2.edu/wg-multicast-sources.shtml).
>> Folks should send URLs to John.

Here's a question: If all of this is so needed, why do we have to
push it so hard (why no market pull? chicken and egg, still?). 

>> We can create an SSM section that has the right URLs to do the right
>> things for the right applications.
>> 
>> Finally, as john z. also pointed out, there is lots of straightforward
>> things we can all be working on, but it seems we lack community-wide
>> leadership.
>> 
>> Maybe we can use Boulder's Joint Techs and/or the next IETF (MADDOGS?)
>> to at least identify a set of action items for SSM deployment and see
>> if we can't get people tasked with some of these work items.
>> 
>> I'll be at both of these meetings and wouldn't mind acting as scribe
>> and getting these things on some WWW site (I2 mcast pages?).

SSM deployment belongs in MBONED. There's not longer any such
thing (thankfully) as MADDOGS. 

Dave