Re: [Mobopts] [SAM] XCAST at IETF 76 in Hiroshima

Marc Manthey <> Thu, 11 December 2008 06:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B6C3A693A; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA61E3A679F; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:15:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.373
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bA0WzulADXMC; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:15:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2770A3A6A9D; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:15:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1L9la2-0007UE-9K; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:15:42 +0100
Message-Id: <>
From: Marc Manthey <>
To: sam <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:15:40 +0100
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:02:42 -0800
Cc: mipshop <>,, mobopts <>
Subject: Re: [Mobopts] [SAM] XCAST at IETF 76 in Hiroshima
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility Optimizations <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0932659332=="

Am 08.12.2008 um 15:07 schrieb John Buford:

> Dear XCAST-team,
> Please comment to the RG mailing list regarding what
> XCAST-related activities we could cover at a SAM RG
> meeting if we scheduled it at IETF 76.
> Thanks,
> John


i am curious if  some of them might read this too

> As I wrote on the BBS in linux-xcast6 of sourceforge, we don't have
> patches for Mac OS X. I heard some want to try but currently I think
> nobody working on porting XCAST6 on Mac.


>>  What does a universal P2P overlay protocol mean in detail? Is it  
>> similar to the common API by Dabek et al. ("Towards a Common API  
>> for Structured Peer-to-Peer Overlays", 2003)?
> Probably general p2p overlay protocol is not directly targeted  
> within the RG, but p2p/overlay multicast issues may do. There are  
> some current efforts within the P2PSIP WG, not sure what about  
> P2PRG...
>>  Btw: It makes sense to have an interface definition between ALM  
>> 'stack' and application. But this should be a part of a common  
>> group membership framework maybe borrowed from IGMP/MLD. That could  
>> be also an outcome of SAM RG.
> Re: group member management seems a good item to work on, maybe we  
> can work out something within the group...


Les Enfants Terribles - WWW.LET.DE
Marc Manthey 50672 Köln - Germany
Hildeboldplatz 1a
PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d
IRC: #opencu

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and  
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

Please note that according to the German law on data retention,  
information on every electronic information exchange with me is  
retained for a period of six months.

Mobopts mailing list