Re: [multrans] Draft Multrans 2nd BoF request

No, I just wanted to be sure my conflicts were on the list too.

Thanks!,
Greg

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> wrote:
> Greg,
> See
>>> Conflicts to Avoid:
>>>  First Priority: PIM, MBONED, RMT, V6OPS, SOFTWIRE, BEHAVE
> Do you mean delete RMT and V6OPS from the list? Or is it just fine as above?
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Tina TSOU
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:28 AM
> To: Spencer Dawkins
> Cc: Tina TSOU; multrans@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [multrans] Draft Multrans 2nd BoF request
>
> First Priority please: PIM, MBONED, Softwire
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Spencer Dawkins
> <spencer@wonderhamster.org> wrote:
>> (Speaking as individual)
>>
>> Just as a schedule check, the cutoff date for IETF 82 BOF requests is 10/03
>> (according to http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2011.html#IETF82).
>> The only response I've seen to this proposal was from Dan Wing, asking that
>> BEHAVE be added to the first-priority conflict list.
>>
>> Are there any other suggestions that people would like to make? If so, it
>> might be great to say something before the BOF request goes in.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Spencer (as individual)
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> This is draft Multrans 2nd BoF request. Comments are welcome.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> Working Group Name: Multrans BOF
>>> Area Name: Transport Area
>>> Session Requester: Tina Tsou
>>>
>>> Number of Sessions: 1
>>> Length of Session(s):  2 hours
>>>
>>>
>>> Number of Attendees: 100
>>> Conflicts to Avoid:
>>>  First Priority: PIM, MBONED, RMT, V6OPS, SOFTWIRE
>>>  Second Priority: tsvarea intarea
>>>
>>> Special Requests:
>>>  N/A
>>>
>>> In current deployments, the IP multicast forwarding scheme is used by many
>>> providers to deliver some services, such as live TV broadcasting.
>>> Transition to IPv6 raises issues and corresponding requirements. In
>>> particular, IPv4 service continuity is an essential requirement from a
>>> business perspective.
>>> This specifically includes continued receiver access to IPv4-formatted
>>> contents even when the assignment of a dedicated global IPv4 address to the
>>> receiver is no longer possible and even after the receivers have migrated to
>>> IPv6.
>>> Likewise, the delivery of IPv6-formatted contents to IPv4 receivers must
>>> also be possible.
>>> Multicast transition scenarios include the ability to access
>>> IPv4-formatted multicast contents from an IPv4 receiver over an IPv6-only
>>> network and the ability to access IPv4-formatted multicast contents from an
>>> IPv6-only receiver.
>>> The aforementioned issues can be classified into:
>>> . Multicast group and source discovery procedures
>>> . Multicast group subscription procedures
>>> . Multicast tree computation
>>> . Required IPv4-IPv6 multicast inter-working functions
>>> The proposed BoF session aims at discussing use cases and prioritizing
>>> list of issues, forming a new WG.
>>> The proposed agenda for the BoF session goes like this:
>>> . Welcome introduction and agenda bashing (chairs, 10 min)
>>> . Use cases (TBD, 30 min)
>>> . Prioritizing list of issues (TBD, 30 min)
>>> . Discussion (all, 30 min)
>>> . Conclusion and next steps (chairs, ADs, 20 min)
>>> Reading material:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jaclee-behave-v4v6-mcast-ps-02
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tsou-multrans-use-cases-00
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Tina TSOU
>>> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> multrans mailing list
>>> multrans@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> multrans mailing list
>> multrans@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans
>>
>