Re: [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-multicast-transition-taxonomy-00

Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com> Mon, 07 March 2011 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jacniq@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A4A3A6914 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 22:25:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.177, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qmEqORcOhO6e for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 22:25:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99A53A67F5 for <behave@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 22:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywi6 with SMTP id 6so1909013ywi.31 for <behave@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Mar 2011 22:26:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1n4bun+6Bns29SavJuUwC9MT8Q5Ex8BC1Uh49wag7QE=; b=wkL3B6ZCxs9wUMOA3/3wtLF3/H1UjJyM1rlg1kxkuQUSYzFni9LFpnqOpQFaD0YRFj H8f5mA/LRFBrFBQkjj4XsBwV7jTGMerKDpgur0lT7UFN+ow62Z75ccjm4mLJHH8zhO2H T5Bdxlhc1mFDE5HAkbFnnHwkupjb7DPwd7fg8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=GG35P9OeS3X4qMNxGjhZC3J2VBe/ZMViOwfGAni6AieiHAitU9bmRRqeb4IPDSBxkV +9G5h9tFpJeJDF+lWDD3+xxFNRGHGukIjtUUu/kllUkdWm5Tl+IomIQfuTR1QNNPP7eB sDo/L9BAE1isS9wFErBiNYP5ui65WZxH8IQG4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.56.17 with SMTP id e17mr4076418yba.190.1299479200559; Sun, 06 Mar 2011 22:26:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.146.82.4 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 22:26:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP19325CD12A71963DF11ED4D8C20@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP939AF558416E58F95666B6D8C10@phx.gbl> <4D6E9D61.6030402@venaas.com> <0e6e01cbd917$445aaee0$cd100ca0$@com> <034c01cbd921$672f1c80$358d5580$@com> <AANLkTikqY_a9LN=M7-iBCECSggCZcbjfn+yXVO1jg6tf@mail.gmail.com> <BLU0-SMTP19325CD12A71963DF11ED4D8C20@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:26:40 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimL2sR6Ff2FkjnoEeSB1yoKx3axDEA-8ssknmpN@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com>
To: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd707782474db049dde9487"
Cc: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, behave@ietf.org, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>, Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-multicast-transition-taxonomy-00
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:25:40 -0000

Hi Tom,

Sorry, I don't follow you point.

For ASM, we mean "Any-Source Multicast". The statement below is just to
clarify that for example, in practical deployment of the scheme, the broadband
subscribers are not allowed to source the multicast traffic. Other things
like, RP, Source Registration, of ASM are all taken into account.


Cheers,
Jacni

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net> wrote:

> This is a point to be discussed. Our criterion for whether ASM was
> addressed was whether sources were allowed in network A. You discussed ASM
> in network C, and the table records this fact, but your introduction has the
> following statement:
>
>  "This document does not cover the case where an IPv4 host connected to
>   a CPE served by a DS-Lite AFTR can be the source of multicast
>   traffic."
>
> Should we classify by a different criterion than the one we used?
>
>
>
> On 03/03/2011 3:59 AM, Jacni Qin wrote:
>
>> Hi Tina,
>>
>> Thanks for writing the document, please see below my comments.
>>
>> For the discussions about draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast in Section
>> 3,
>> Acctually, both ASM and SSM are covered everytime when some points are
>> discussed, for example, Address mapping, mB4, mAFTR.
>> Particularly, the authors spent a lot of efforts on the ASM deployment
>> issues encounterd in Section 7.
>> So, please update the text related, also that in the Table 1, thanks.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jacni
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Tina Tsou<tena@huawei.com>  wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Dan,
>>> We have emailed all of the authors of the various drafts and ask them to
>>> review draft-tsou-multicast-transition-taxonomy.
>>>
>>>
>>> We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Tina TSOU
>>> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>>> Of
>>> Dan Wing
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:20 PM
>>> To: 'Stig Venaas'; 'Tom Taylor'
>>> Cc: behave@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notification for
>>> draft-tsou-multicast-transition-taxonomy-00
>>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Stig Venaas
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:41 AM
>>>> To: Tom Taylor
>>>> Cc: behave@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-
>>>> multicast-transition-taxonomy-00
>>>>
>>>> On 3/1/2011 8:00 AM, Tom Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have prepared this document to help sort out the multicast
>>>>> transition
>>>>> work in the BEHAVE and SOFTWIRES WGs. Please have a look at and
>>>>> comment
>>>>> on the conclusions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A good well written document :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>  I would not use the term Multicast Topology for ASM vs SSM. Topology is
>>>> more used for network topology... ASM and SSM are generally I think,
>>>> referred to as different multicast service models. I would suggest
>>>> using
>>>> that term.
>>>>
>>>> That is the only change I would suggest in the draft.
>>>>
>>>> Some comments regarding ID.venaas-mcast46 though. It can be used
>>>> together with ID.boucadair-64-multicast-address-format, and I plan
>>>> to update it with a reference to that. This is maybe obvious though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tom, tt would be really valuable if you could email all of the
>>> authors of the various drafts and ask them to review
>>> draft-tsou-multicast-transition-taxonomy, to ensure their documents
>>> are all accurately summarized.
>>>
>>> -d
>>>
>>>  It is correct that it is from 2008. Although not relevant, I feel like
>>>> pointing out that the draft is very close to
>>>> draft-venaas-mboned-v4v6mcastgw-00.txt from 2003.
>>>>
>>>> Stig
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Behave mailing list
>>>> Behave@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Behave mailing list
>>> Behave@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Behave mailing list
>>> Behave@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>>
>>>
>>