RE: FINAL CALL for Feedback on Charter

[<Rod.Walsh@nokia.com>]

Sorry to labour the point but...

> Indeed, unicast AND multicast ARE within the charter.
> 
> I was trying to capture the properties of the transmission 
> system, i.e.,
> this is multicast capable not that it is unicast incapable.

I understand. However, there is plenty of presidence of "Shoot Ethernet First, Think other L2 later" in the IETF, and so it should be assumed that any L2 introduced to IP is unicast, multicast and anycast capable unless explicity stated otherwise. The charter text implies the IPDVB is more interested in multicast, which is not the impression I have had from the IPDVB BOF discussions, and clearly not the intention as you reiterated.

Thus for L3 it would seem logical to either mention both multicast and unicast, or emphasise neither.

I could have got the wrong end of the end-to-end stick and been thinking L3 when the charter was meaning L2. If the text was to emphasise a "multicast L2" I suggest "multipoint layer 2" or "point-to-multipoint", since "multicast" is more often associated with IP Multicast and "broadcast" usually is either associated with IP broadcast (not IPv6:) or L1(+L2) broadcast (as in TV & FM radio).

Was I clear and did I get everything?

I was rushing the previous email so I forgot to include a wording suggestion. How about adding "both unicast and"?...
"Specific properties of this subnetwork technology include both unicast and multicast-capability, large numbers of down-stream receivers, and efficiency of transmission. These properties resemble those in some other wireless networks"

or "multicast-capability" -> "point-to-multipoint delivery at L1 & L2"

BTW, I recognise that "...properties of this subnetwork technology..." implies L2 to some, but "subnets" are L3 affairs too!

Cheers, Rod.