Re: [multrans] Draft Multrans BoF request

Hi Tom,

I guess we can remove "issues" from the topic just like what you
suggested. For the time allocated to scenarios, I think we will list all
but only focus on 4-6-4 and 6r-4s.

Regards,
Yiu

On 6/10/11 11:10 PM, "Tom Taylor" <tom111.taylor@bell.net> wrote:

>Please explain why you want to keep requirements and issues together.
>They are two separate topics. The requirements flow from the users' and
>service providers' needs. The issues flow from a technical analysis of
>the operation of the available protocols.
>
>As to time allocation, I'd suggest that the scenarios should have
>somewhat less time, 15 minutes at most, unless we are going to present
>lower-priority scenarios at a detailed level. The extra time should be
>shifted to the discussion slot.
>
>On 10/06/2011 2:53 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
>> Hi Tina, all,
>>
>> I would propose to keep one single slot to discuss the issues and
>>requirements.
>>
>> Furthermore, a slot to present the scope
>>(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jaclee-behave-v4v6-mcast-ps-02#section-
>>2.1) and the list of work items should be added (see
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jaclee-behave-v4v6-mcast-ps-02#section-5
>>)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Med
>>
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : multrans-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multrans-bounces@ietf.org] De la
>>part de Tina Tsou
>> Envoyé : mardi 7 juin 2011 00:06
>> À : multrans@ietf.org
>> Cc : 'Jari Arkko'
>> Objet : Re: [multrans] Draft Multrans BoF request
>>
>> Hi all,
>> A small nit,
>> .    Requirements and issues (TBD, 15 min)
>> should be
>> .    Requirements (TBD, 15 min)
>>
>> It is updated below.
>>
>> 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 and hopefully validating the
>> need for the IETF to work on these issues.
>> The proposed agenda for the BoF session goes like this:
>> .    Welcome introduction and agenda bashing (chairs, 10 min)
>> .    Multicast transition scenarios (TBD, 20 min)
>> .    Requirements (TBD, 15 min)
>> .    Issues (TBD, 15 min)
>> .    Discussion (all, 20 min)
>> .    Conclusion and next steps (chairs, ADs, 10 min)
>> Reading material:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jaclee-behave-v4v6-mcast-ps-02"
>>
>> BoF chairs should include one rep from the service provider's community.
>>
>>
>> We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>multrans mailing list
>multrans@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans