Hi,
> -----Original Message----- > From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Konstantinos Pentikousis > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:21 PM > To: sarik...@ieee.org; jouni korhonen > Cc: Stig Venaas; Behcet Sarikaya; Peter McCann; dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] Multicast requirements > > Hi Behcet > > |As you know, Costas has changed his view "thinking wider". > > I didn't change my view :) Maybe it was not so clearly explained, > apologies for that. I think that it does not harm to have a separate > "REQ no. 7" addressing multicast along the lines previously mentioned > in the mailing list. However, if drafting such a REQ delays our > progress in the WG wrt the -reqs draft, the best practices/gap analysis > work or, even worse, going after concrete DMM solutions in a speedy > manner, it makes more sense to tweak some of the existing requirements > text so we can accommodate the requirement for multicast support. After > all, the current DMM chapter does not explicitly mention "multicast". > > > |If existing requirements are covering what we want, as it seems with > |REQ 3/4/5, why not go with them? > > I agree, but it's reasonable, since the point was brought up, to > explicitly cover multicast (one way or another, see above) in the -reqs > draft. [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. Regards, JC > > Best Regards, > > Kostas > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
