Re: closing the working group

Hi,

I agree with Alvaro.

IGMPv3/MLDv2 have some bugs and are good to update, although I don't
know whether the version number should be changed or not.
The updated version specification can be inherited from LW version
protocol specification, and mobility support may be also considered
(while there may still be the possibility to work on it in multimob).

And if the new versions are proposed, IGMP/MLD security may be able to
be considered.

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

Subject: Re: [magma] closing the working group
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:12:56 +0100

> 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
> 
>