Re: [multrans] Draft Multrans 2nd BoF request

[Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:28 AM
To: Spencer Dawkins
Cc: Tina TSOU; [e-mail]
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
<[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans
>
> _______________________________________________
> multrans mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans
>