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

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
>>
>