Re: closing the working group

Hi,
 
For the three problem mentioned please see my comments:
 
1. I suppose this process is usefull on shared network and when the explicit
tracking is not used. When the Qurier receives a leave, it should prune for
this group only when it is assured that no other host on the same subnet
receiving from the same group, by sending this query.
 
2 It's true. And the usage of include and exclude mode makes the protocol
rather complicated.  But we have a
draft"draft-ietf-mboned-lightweight-igmpv3-mldv2" dealing with this issue.
The draft abolishes the usage of the two filter-modes and redesigns
IGMPv3/MLDv2 in a rather simplified manner.  The draft is currently
processed in MBONED WG.
 
3. The isssue should be further evaluated  what exactly the new requirements
are.  If they turn out to be merely tuning of the protocol parameters, there
is no need to introduce a new version of the draft.  Otherwise they should
be first clarified then decided which group is appropriate for the work.
 
 
Best Regards,
Liu Hui


  _____  

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Alvaro Fernandez
Sent: 2009年2月12日 23:13
To: Jari Arkko; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [magma] closing the working group


Hi,
 
I think IGMPv3 should evolve into IGMPv4, or whatever is necessary.
 
I see three problems with the current RFC 3376 specification:
 
1. Latency (Sending a Q(S,G) when a host leaves and waiting the answer)  
2. I think mixing include sources and exclude sources is a mistake that
makes the protocol complex and makes more difficult the integration with
PIM-SM.
3. New issues related with mobility. Today there are probably more mobile
host than not mobile hosts and IGMPv3 ignores mobility. (There is the
MULTIMOB mailing list in the IETF but there is no working group for
multicast host mobility)
 
So, from my point of view, there are reassons to continue working on IGMP or
another groups like 3GPP will do this work with specifications like MBMS
that designs everything considering the business point of view of telecom
companies (authentication, charging, ...)
 
Best regards
 
Alvaro Fernandez

  _____  

De: [email protected] en nombre de Jari Arkko
Enviado el: jue 12/02/2009 11:32
Para: [email protected]
Asunto: [magma] closing the working group



The last document has been approved from this working group, and all
milestones have been reached. Should we call this the successful
termination of the project?

After a discussion with the chairs, my plan is to close the WG. The
mailing list would be kept open, because there are occasional
discussions about the interpretation of the rules in existing RFCs etc.
If there are informational or experimental documents, I can AD sponsor
them without a working group.

Does anyone see a need to keep the WG alive?

Jari

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma