Subject: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-08.txt

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:10:48 -0400

BMWG'ers:

A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on
      "Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking,"

      <draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-08.txt>

will be open from 08 August 2002 until 29 August 2002.

This latest version of the I-D attempts to address feedback
from the previous WG Last Call.

If you feel that this draft should not be given to the Area Directors
for consideration in progressing the I-D to an Informational RFC,
please cite your basis to this list or [email-masked].  This must
be done prior to close of the last call period. Of course, notes of
support are always welcome.

A URL for the Internet-Draft is:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-08.txt

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "Perser, Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:04:11 -0700

Kevin,

In Minneapolis (53rd IETF meeting), you mentioned something about revisiting
the Multicast Terminology/Methodology to reflect changes since 1998.  If I
remember correctly, this was initiated from the Multicast group.  I couldn't
find the meeting notes on http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02mar/152.htm
(sorry).  What did you resolve on this issue?

I still believe sections 4.1, 8.1, and 8.2 are too ambiguous.  Mixed Class
Throughput no longer references the appendix, but still leave a lot of
imagination on how to implement it.  What happened to the suggested test I
submitted?  What was not acceptable with it?  Why is the current ambiguous
methodology better?

The Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay and Forwarding Burdened Group
Latency are still not clear.  This was mention at the 46th IETF meeting
(http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99nov/46th-99nov-ietf-70.html).  I am
willing to submit suggested text as soon as the Mixed Class Throughput is
resolved.

In rereading section 4.1 (and 46th IETF meeting notes), I have some more
comments I will submit in another email.

I feel that this draft should not be given to the Area Directors until
comments (as old as 1999) are addressed.  I could be wrong, just respond
with why.

Jerry.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Dubray [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 8:11 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-08.txt
> 
> 
> BMWG'ers:
>