Re: [MBONED] Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-14

[Greg Bumgardner <[e-mail]>]

Yes, anybody who hasn't done so, please do. I need to submit at least
one more version to correct some minor errors. Drop dead date for
submissions is Monday, 10/21.

Thanks!

-g.b.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Have you had a chance to review the updated draft?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Martin Stiemerling
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/25/2013 07:14 PM, Greg Bumgardner wrote:
>>>
>>> Martin,
>>>
>>> IPv6 is mentioned in the second paragraph though the description is
>>> pretty vague - basically implying that, just as an IPv6 router is not
>>> supposed to (re)fragment IPv6 datagrams, an AMT relay should not
>>> fragment data messages that encapsulate non-fragmented datagrams.
>>>
>>> I'll expand on this in the the paragraph in question, and will review
>>> the normative description to see if it is adequate.
>>
>>
>> ok, thanks and resubmit the updated version to see where we are.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>   Martin
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -g.b.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Martin Stiemerling
>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 04/08/2013 03:43 PM, Greg Shepherd (shep) wrote:
>>>
>>>         Martin,
>>>
>>>         Any circuit-breaker mechanism should be described in its own
>>> draft,
>>>         and not within this one. Gorry and I agreed in Orlando that a
>>>         paragraph warning of non-CG traffic would be sufficient. I hope
>>> this
>>>         view has not changed.
>>>
>>>
>>>     The current statement is ok.
>>>
>>>     What about this question:
>>>
>>>     - Section 4.2.2.4 looks rather incomplete as it basically only
>>>     describes the IPv4 case. Is this intentionally?
>>>
>>>     Otherwise, please post an updated version of the draft.
>>>
>>>        Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         Thanks, Greg
>>>
>>>         On Apr 8, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Martin Stiemerling
>>>         <[e-mail]
>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Hi Greg,
>>>
>>>             - Section 4.1.4.2. is a good start and documents the
>>> challenges.
>>>             However, there has been also the proposal from Gorry/me
>>>             (sent in a
>>>             private email) about adding a circuit breaker to the
>>> protocol.
>>>             E.g., adding a protocol mechanism that allows relays to
>>> exchange
>>>             some basic information such as x packet sent in the last
>>>             second, so
>>>             that the other end can detect if it has received less than x
>>>             or x
>>>             packets.
>>>
>>>             - Section 4.2.2.4 looks rather incomplete as it basically
>>> only
>>>             describes the IPv4 case. Is this intentionally?
>>>
>>>             Martin
>>>
>>>             On 04/01/2013 09:13 PM, Greg Bumgardner wrote:
>>>
>>>                 Hi All,
>>>
>>>                 I've attached the draft I had intended to submit prior
>>>                 to the
>>>                 last IETF meeting (missed cutoff by 20 mins - forgot
>>>                 about UTC).
>>>                 I have been asked to distribute this text for review by
>>>                 the ISEG
>>>                 discussion participants prior to submission as
>>>                 additional changes
>>>                 may be required. This version of the document corrects
>>>                 various
>>>                 typos, etc., and includes new text in which I attempted
>>> to
>>>                 address concerns raised by several reviewers. I have
>>>                 been told
>>>                 that there have been some off-line discussions (in
>>> Orlando)
>>>                 regarding some open issues in which some consensus has
>>> been
>>>                 reached regarding how these should be addressed in the
>>>                 document.
>>>                 I would appreciate feedback as to whether the new text is
>>>                 acceptable and suggestions as to what might be added or
>>>                 changed
>>>                 as a result of any off-line discussions.
>>>
>>>                 I've copied the mboned group so that they may see the
>>> latest
>>>                 changes - group members should reply to me and
>>>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>                 <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> if
>>>
>>>                 they have questions or comments.
>>>
>>>                 Thanks,
>>>
>>>                 -g.b.
>>>
>>>                 -- Greg Bumgardner Eugene, OR
>>>
>>>
>>>             -- [e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>
>>>             NEC Laboratories Europe NEC Europe Limited Registered Office:
>>>             Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End  Road, London, HA4
>>>             6QE, GB
>>>             Registered in England 2832014
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>
>>>     NEC Laboratories Europe
>>>     NEC Europe Limited
>>>     Registered Office:
>>>     Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End  Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB
>>>     Registered in England 2832014
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Greg Bumgardner
>>> Eugene, OR
>>
>>
>> --
>> [e-mail]
>>
>> NEC Laboratories Europe
>> NEC Europe Limited
>> Registered Office:
>> Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End  Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB
>> Registered in England 2832014
>
>



-- 
Greg Bumgardner
Eugene, OR