Re: Multicast requirements

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stig Venaas [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 3:01 PM
> To: jouni korhonen
> Cc: [email protected]; Zuniga, Juan Carlos; Konstantinos Pentikousis;
> Peter McCann; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Multicast requirements
> 
> On 11/15/2012 3:17 AM, jouni korhonen wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 15, 2012, at 1:03 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > "Requirement: DMM solutions SHOULD support multicast services. If a
> specific DMM solution does not support multicast services, an
> explanation MUST be provided."
> 
> This sounds good to me.
> 
> The main thing I want to achieve is what was describes as motivation
> earlier in this thread. Multicast should at least be considered when
> looking into DMM solutions, and not just an afterthought once the
> solution is decided.
> 
> Stig

[JCZ] I fully agree with this. That was the intention of the proposed
text.

Regards,

Juan Carlos
 
> 
> > To me that reads basically "do not break foundations for multicast
> unless you have a valid & documented reason for it".  If we look e.g.
> into RFC625 multicast wording that is there very briefly but gives a
> hint to a developer where to head to. That is the level I would expect
> DMM documents should aim to.
> >
> > - Jouni
> >
> >
> >> 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