[BXXPwg] Agenda for 12/14 meeting

Dan Li lidan@cisco.com
Fri, 08 Dec 2000 12:13:23 -0800


At 08:38 PM 11/30/00 -0800, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
> > Whats the point of multicast mapping? Isn't this confusing BXXP
>semantically?
> >
> > Doesn't BXXP rely on *a* peer talking to *a* peer? How can multiple peers
> > responding to a multicast MSG message keep frame sequence numbers
>coordinated,
> > for example (I can think of several other issues).
> >
> > Or am I not understanding what you are proposing?
>
>i think it would be useful to have a discussion on what functionality a
>beep-like framework for multicast applications should have.
>
>one of the selling points of beep is that it's an integrated framework for
>peer2peer/client-server application protocols. it doesn't so much invent
>stuff, rather it combines best practices.
>
>i think it's reasonable to ask for a similar framework for multipeer
>application protocols. although the topic is outside the charter of the
>existing working group, given the informal basis for the san diego meeting,
>i think it would be good to visit. in particular, i'm interested in how many
>people are interested in the pragmatic single sender/multiple receiver
>multicasting model vs. the fully-generalized model.
>
>keith - can i ask that you add this discussion to the agenda (say for 15-20
>mins).
>
>dan - it would be useful if you came to meeting with a couple of slides
>talking about your requirements for a multipeer framework!

I'll try. I'm still catching up on Beep but hopefully I'll catch up enough 
on the plane to be able to speak intelligently about it.

Dan

>/mtr
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>BXXPwg mailing list
>BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net
>http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg