Re: Multicast requirements

> [JCZ] I also agree with explicitly covering multicast. Implicitly
> covering it has not been good enough, as this is what triggered this
> whole discussion. Explicitly covering it does not seem to be harmful
> either.
> The amended text by Kostas seems good to me and I think that we can move
> forward with it. Hence, I support including that text in the WG
> requirements draft.

Disagree.

Such requirements state nothing new, and are useless.

How are we going to judge on somebody's multicast solution by looking
at this requirement?

If we include this requirement then we should also have a requirement
saying that fast handover should supported.


If we have a requirement saying that fast handover should be supported
then we should also have a requirement saying that even faster
handover should be supported.

I think we are reading too much into multicast and unicast should be
designed in an integrated manner.

The fact is that multicast is considered as an area of specialization,
it requires knowledge of very different protocols than we are
accustomed to in mobility.

Let dmm deal with its current charter that does not include a word of
multicast and if everything goes well we can come back and discuss dmm
multicast.

Regards,

Behcet