Subject: [multrans] List of work items

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 04:21:36 +0000

Hi all,
Attached is the presentation of List of work items.
Comments are welcome.

Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html

---

From: Yiqun Cai <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:12:17 -0700

Tina, 

I would like to suggest that you provide some reasoning and give some advice
on what piece of work is best done in softwire, behave or multrans (if it
becomes a working group).  I am sure this discussion will come up and it
will be lively.

Thanks. 

P.S.,  I would like to make the same comment for Tom too.

On 7/21/11 9:21 PM, "Tina TSOU" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> multrans mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:18:37 +0000

Yiqun,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
I summarize it based on the problem statement I-D, the other presentations, and the mailing list discussion.
The BoF chairs may lead the chartering issues discussion.

Best Regards,
Tina TSOU

-----Original Message-----
From: Yiqun Cai [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:12 PM
To: Tina TSOU; Multicast Transition
Subject: Re: [multrans] List of work items

Tina, 

Thanks. 

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: Jacni Qin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:30:00 +0800

hi Yiqun,

> becomes a working group).  I am sure this discussion will come up and it

Jacni>: Thanks for your comments,

+1

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:41:58 -0400

My personal view of the allocation of effort would be as follows:

MULTRANS: Problem statement, architecture, applicability statements 
(with Softwires and maybe Behave looking over our shoulders, depending 
on which transition mechanisms we document). I could see the possibility 
of some protocol development in MULTRANS, but not in the initial effort. 
I think there might be two waves of effort here, starting with the 
restrictions in the current version of the Problem Statement and then 
relaxing some of them (allowing a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints 
which can be both sources and receivers). I'm not sure if the MIB work 
should be done here as a separate work item or tied into the 
applicability statements.

PIM: new IGMP/MLD/PIM interworking specifications.

BEHAVE: the multicast equivalent to RFC 6052.

Jacni and I have already disagreed on how the application to DS-Lite 
gets documented. I've drawn up an initial version of the multicast 
transition architecture document as I see it, and hope to get it on the 
table in the next few days so people can see what I have in mind. That 
document can make key contributions in discussion of operations and 
mangement and security issues associated with multicast transition.

On 22/07/2011 1:12 AM, Yiqun Cai wrote:
> On 7/21/11 9:21 PM, "Tina TSOU"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,