Re: [multrans] Updated Issues Presentation

Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com> Mon, 04 July 2011 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <jacniq@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: multrans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multrans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11BCC9E8009 for <multrans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 07:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.714, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PlapdjRsB8ti for <multrans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 07:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158F89E8004 for <multrans@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 07:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so4564722vws.31 for <multrans@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 07:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JxMIBrIs5CAgeD/AtGbGwBBzfzBkc1LSqhX4krH15XM=; b=ZOxvD9j1glyMx3swk51r+IkTPpBcF6lpwKguR0Ntj3UTXfPSjtA2ErgUgvCf3+6B0U MVWNdqj37ekzqXvo54AGk/H8sde/7F00c8pG+WkZ87jTlOlAof2yI5vdMBLR1qXu0/Kc rl0W9KqhP73QXXtu4yWUpfq7EsMua9eN+buwM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.179.103 with SMTP id df7mr2453213vdc.17.1309789355487; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.184.165 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP157C6556207D26A011FDCCD85B0@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP59634072197C33E24446BBD8580@phx.gbl> <BANLkTin6CqZWsTSt7nG6SUSPaSdkH1VTMA@mail.gmail.com> <BLU0-SMTP157C6556207D26A011FDCCD85B0@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 22:22:35 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHmj1WdodQZCCE1Wafs_dpJpMnJx_iVQd1yUpmSrt3X9VTuUDw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com>
To: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51a785843afc504a73f194d
Cc: "multrans@ietf.org" <multrans@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multrans] Updated Issues Presentation
X-BeenThere: multrans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the work of IPv4-IPv6 multicast." <multrans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multrans>, <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multrans>
List-Post: <mailto:multrans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans>, <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:23:30 -0000

hi Tom,

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net> wrote:

> Let me counter-offer a view, that the problem statement text should be
> updated to make the roles of translation and tunneling clearer, rather than
> hiding it all under the "interworking" term.
>

Jacni>: It's not hiding. And I guess the translation and tunneling share the
same Interworking functions of signaling.


>
> Thinking more about the contents of slide 9, I realize that tunneling of
> multicast signalling between multicast routers will only make sense in
> special situations and is an issue of network design rather than a topic
> within the scope of multicast transition.


Jacni>: Yes, it's an issue, and should be avoided, or as stated in the PS
I-D, "forwarding multicast traffic over unicast-only networks is out of the
scope..." ;-)

So the second half of slide 9 applies primarily to the transport of
> multicast content. The architecture document proposed as a work item could
> cover the use of encapsulation in general, and one of the applicability work
> items would be to describe the application of the architecture to DS-lite.


Jacni>: I'm afraid I can not agree. IMHO, the current PS I-D is fair enough
for the architectural or general discussions if you want. The scenarios,
requirements and issues of different use cases (e.g. Mesh, DS-Lite, ..) are
clear, and should be addressed individually, of course in the order of
priority.


Cheers,
Jacni


>
> On 30/06/2011 3:14 AM, Jacni Qin wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the updates,
>>
>> For page 9 Encapsulation, please check again my previous comments and
>> proposed text.
>> And I guess the issue currently listed applies not only to encapsulation
>> case, but to the translation as well.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jacni
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Tom Taylor<tom111.taylor@bell.net>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  Here's an update to our issues slides. We've tried to responsive to the
>>> comments. Thanks to Joel, Dan, and Jacni.
>>>
>>> Tom Taylor
>>> Cathy Zhou
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> multrans mailing list
>>> multrans@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/multrans<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>