Re: call for adoption of draft-acg-mboned-multicast-models

Stig- indeed, the doc did start out as a description of the service 
models, but evolved to become a BCP/recommendation doc to more clearly 
give guidance to those outside of the WG what those inside of it always 
believed, mentioned, but never seemed to document: "use SSM bc it does 
everything you need and is vastly simpler and more robust, unless you 
absolutely need something in ASM (and in most cases you won't)".

So the doc does have somewhat of a split personality now.  This was one of 
the questions from the presentation in Singapore- should we remove the 
service model description stuff (and maybe make it a sep doc) to focus on 
the recommendation to use SSM/Deprecate ASM for interdomain?

As I mentioned below, IMO, we should prune it to focus on the 
recommendation as this would provide needed clarity and value.  

As for the descriptions of the service models, if folks believe it can 
provide more info than what's been done in the past (eg, RFCs 5110, 3569), 
I think this could go into a sep doc.

-Lenny

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017, Stig Venaas wrote:

| Hi
| 
| I probably support adoption... However, I don't like the title of the
| document. I don't mind the deprecation, but the document has a lot of
| text explaining different models and guidance. It's much more than
| just that deprecation. I prefer the version 00 title.
| 
| I would like to know, is the main goal deprecation, as in the title,
| or to provide information and guidance about service models? I would
| potentially like to see two documents. One with the original title and
| scope, and a second document focusing on the deprecation and why.
| 
| Stig
| 
| 
| On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote:
| >> On 14 Dec 2017, at 15:45, Leonard Giuliano <[email protected]> wrote:
| >>
| >> Likewise, as a coauthor, I am not aware of any IPR.  And I would love to
| >> see it pruned to focus on the interdomain ASM deprecation/strong SSM
| >> recommendation.  And some softening of the intradomain verbiage also seems
| >> reasonable.
| >
| > I’d agree with that.
| >
| > Tim
| >
| >>
| >> -Lenny
| >>
| >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Tim Chown wrote:
| >>
| >> | >> Please respond by Dec 18 if you do/do not support adoption of this draft.
| >> |
| >> | >
| >> |
| >> | > As co-author, I support adoption of this draft.
| >> |
| >> | Likewise, though it’s not clear from the very brief IETF 100 minutes
| >> | whether the draft retains its current structure or is pruned down to
| >> | focus on the SSM recommendation and inter-domain ASM deprecation.  What
| >> | was the outcome of that discussion?
| >> |
| >> | >> If you are listed as a document author, please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. If you are not listed as an author and are aware of any relevant IPR, please respond as well.
| >> |
| >> | > I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
| >> |
| >> |
| >> |
| >> | Likewise.
| >> |
| >> |
| >> |
| >> | Tim
| >> |
| >>
| >
| > _______________________________________________
| > MBONED mailing list
| > [email protected]
| > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mboned&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=iw2TU3OZ0CDpCbqeV23zdah2FoG9Do-zEmGgWTaavDg&m=ZVEDb191EVgbzMRQBAzr5IvKS2PEyEovsxKQbjQ9eMw&s=enTfeUn1TmWZuTKlSxO2nyvHN2XIeRPdow525eWKyd8&e=
| 

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