From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 06 08:53:08 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrxCt-0004ii-Qh; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:53:07 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrxCs-0004iO-4l for fecframe@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:53:06 -0500 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrxCq-0007xf-Qd for fecframe@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:53:06 -0500 Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP id 5826538 for fecframe@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:53:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <672E8C51-5601-4185-9652-C60DB39766DA@multicasttech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: fecframe@ietf.org From: Marshall Eubanks Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:52:57 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 16c9da4896bf5539ae3547c6c25f06a0 Subject: [Fecframe] Minutes from San Diego X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org These Minutes have been posted for a while, but I have not seen them on the list (which has been quiet since the meeting, so this is also a test of the list !). If you have corrections, please send them by Friday. Regards Marshall ------ IETF67 FECFrame Minutes Greg Shepherd, Marshal Eubanks WG chairs. Mark Watson prsenting requirements draft update: draft-fecframe-req-01.txt - Add motivation section - RMT FEC not good enough because: - repeated FEC Object Transmission Information - different recommendations for parameters - formatting of stream data (eg: not transfer file with start and end, but stream - live without necessary start/end, limited delay). - Proposal: - FEC framework peer to RMT FEC building block - FEC scheemes in FEC-F may be different than those in RMT FEC BB Greg asking for example -> FEC Framework for streaming content (low latency) instead of object(file) as RMT specs assume. break data in block, but in stream case one need different procedures. Steve Bosco: Q; only FEC schemes doing erasure correction in scope. Why ? Eg: Why not bitlayer correction. A (Mark): Only UDP included as transport means no bit-errors possible but just packet loss. No need for bit-error correction. A (Unidentified1): Only goal of group protection aganst packet loss. A (Unidentified2): Other working groups are trying to provide better protection of UDP data beyond UDP checksum. A (Stefan Wegner/Nokia): Not interested in bit error correction. A (Colin) DCCP and UDP lite allow bit-errors to happen. A (Marshal): What is beyond erasure correction: A (Unidentified1): Bit error correction in packet. Q(Unidentified1): What is an FEC scheme: a) Describing of encoding b) how encoding is adapted to transport (UDP or RTP) today "scheme" meant to imply both. Maybe better to better differentiate between those two tasks. Not sure if document separation necessary for this. A(Mark): Yes, may need to structure documents into these two sections. Want to start out with "just" FEC scheme in drafts so different drafts can include heir own mechanism for both components. But reuse of common components definitely possible/wanted. Q(Toerless): What type of packet loss (low stochastic, big-burst) in scope of requirement A(Mark): All type of losses in scope, applicability of individual proposals for FECs may only work for certain type of losses. Q(Marshal) Ask whether it should be taken to last call. Q(Colin) There seem to be things to do, do last call only after they are done. A(Unidentified2): Do not do working group last call rightnow at all. Q(shep): So we can refine requirements when we learn more through the actual solution drafts ? A(Unidentified): Yes. - May want to do freeze call. Mark Watson presenting framework draft: draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt - Based on original draft based on proposal made a few IETF ago in transport area. WHich was based on work done for 3GPP. - FEC streaming framework between application protos (RTP, RTCP, MIKEY,..) and Transport, Eg: UDP. FEC-framework has as module the FEC Scheme. - Application sitting on top of application protocol has API into controlling FEC streaming framework. - define which flows are to be protected. Define flows to carry protection data. - functionality of FEC streaming framework: - allocate packets to source blocks - construct and send source and repair packets - FEC scheme part: - encoding and decoding of FEC data. - Defines and interprets FEC signaling elements. - Outline whats in the draft (see slide) ... - includes possibility of unmodified sourcepackets to suppot fully backeward compatible FEC scheme. Q(Marschall): MAY ? -A(Mark): Yes. - Congestion control requirements - Comparison to 3GPP: 3GPP fixed length symbol approach FEC-proposal: source blocksare sequence of tuples of flowid, length, data (eg: variable lengths) Q(Marshall): - In flute you could send any type of dsta. Are yo constrained in this scheme or could you send anything that goes on top of transport lyer (eg: UDP). A(Mark): - Yes. No assumption against transport layer protocols Q(Toerless) - Keep original Data completely unmodified ? A(Mark): - If original data is left completely unchanged, FEC scheme needs to be specific to application layer (eg: RTP) - eg: rely on referring to RTP sequence numbers in rpair stream. If original data is modified (tagged), then FEC scheme can be agnostic of application protocol. Q(Toerless) - Separation of original flow from FEC ? A(Mark): - Yes, part of the transport layer definition. Daa stream and repair stream: Use different ports and/or use different network layer addresses. Q(steve ?bansberg?): - How to manage transport addresses ? A(Magnus): - Explanation of how this works... didn't understand - ask Magnus A(Mark): - startng point is you have already source packet flow. Doesn't change when FEC is added. Same mechanism to get that transport address assigned may need to be aplied to repair flow as well. A(Marshal): - Should be concerned about non-simple end-to-end, eg: NAT A(Mark): - Rather not. Problem of content delivery protocol, not FEC scheme itself. - Mark continuing to present slides. A(Marshal): - Will need to worry about fragmentation in source flows when adding FEC tag-data. A(Colin): - Aware of mmusic SDP profile negotiation effort. Please inform mmusic of SDP implications of proposed FEC framework - Hum on adoption by working group. Yes hums, no no hums. Hao Qin presenting geneic RTP Payload format draft draft-bsong-fecframe-gfec-00.txt - See slides. Q(Colins): - AVT co-chair: draft was previously presented in AVT. AVT rejected: conclusion that this scheme would not provide any benefits over RTP schemes developed by AVT. AVT told authors to generalize scheme and go to FEC-scheme WG. Q: what generalizations have been done. A(Hao): - Not author of this draft, not present at last IETF. Does notk now. answer. A(Stefan Wegner): - Would prefer not to see this draft again. Stop believing that interleaving solves problems. Assumptions based on current technology wrong in future, also got perfectly working RTP FEC scheme. A(Colins): - This groupis doing things much broader than RTP. RTP grop (AVT) has already rejected it. Something needs to change about this draft to have any IETF progress on it. _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 07 12:17:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsMs6-0004gU-Qk; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:17:22 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsMs5-0004bw-1W for fecframe@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:17:21 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsMrv-0003fN-IT for fecframe@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:17:21 -0500 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id BD4C21C1; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:16:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:16:07 +0100 Received: from [147.214.30.247] ([147.214.30.247]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:16:07 +0100 Message-ID: <45784C5A.4000009@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:16:10 +0100 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marshall Eubanks Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Minutes from San Diego References: <672E8C51-5601-4185-9652-C60DB39766DA@multicasttech.com> In-Reply-To: <672E8C51-5601-4185-9652-C60DB39766DA@multicasttech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2006 17:16:07.0269 (UTC) FILETIME=[61F0B150:01C71A23] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Marshall Eubanks skrev: > A(Mark): > - Yes, part of the transport layer definition. Daa stream and > repair stream: Use different ports and/or use different > network layer addresses. > > Q(steve ?bansberg?): > - How to manage transport addresses ? > A(Magnus): > - Explanation of how this works... didn't understand - ask Magnus I can't remember what I said. I guess that this has to do with using a session protocol to tell which addresses and ports are used. > A(Mark): > - startng point is you have already source packet flow. Doesn't change > when FEC is added. Same mechanism to get that transport address > assigned may need to be aplied to repair flow as well. Cheers Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 07 20:35:31 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsUe2-0002cz-U0; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:35:22 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsUe1-0002cu-WE for fecframe@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:35:22 -0500 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.225]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsUe0-0002wk-Q1 for fecframe@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:35:21 -0500 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i7so872835wra for ; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:35:20 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=RxB7CFttC9QIGHyjrCU0e9ZffUchuOXqwwJuJ6pIKsYA5ZQqMM0aYyxjq6mgXM7awV6WB3dymVvo0Ao+4Ezs9e0d98bdmhxG6HHkQd/4UgurGie+etyFBvGiAkqEen5bLw4spYzcgF+LfbW+U4jxWuP70T8hQCKO2OQyiA0LSRE= Received: by 10.78.185.16 with SMTP id i16mr97176huf.1165541718768; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:35:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.100.17 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:35:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:35:18 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: fecframe@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Subject: [Fecframe] Next steps.. X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Greetings, We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year is about gone... It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn going forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call. A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five references; one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The IETF-ID tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call. But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the req draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a thing as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits. So, please - read and respond. Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was presented and received a humming acceptance for adoption. Again, read and respond please. Thanks! Greg _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 07 20:57:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsUzG-0003nz-FT; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:57:18 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsUzE-0003nu-WE for fecframe@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:57:17 -0500 Received: from stewe.org ([85.214.23.117] helo=h665227.serverkompetenz.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsUzD-0007ld-I2 for fecframe@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:57:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 5098 invoked by uid 60000); 8 Dec 2006 01:01:25 -0000 Received: from 68.164.170.220 by h665227 (envelope-from , uid 60004) with qmail-scanner-1.24st visas (spamassassin: 2.64. Clear:RC:0(68.164.170.220):SA:0(0.0/20.0):. Processed in 0.264861 secs); 08 Dec 2006 01:01:25 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=20.0 X-Envelope-From: stewe@stewe.org Received: from h-68-164-170-220.snfccasy.dynamic.covad.net (HELO ?192.168.1.220?) (stewe@stewe.org@68.164.170.220) by stewe.org with SMTP; 8 Dec 2006 01:01:24 -0000 In-Reply-To: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Stephan Wenger Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Next steps.. Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:57:00 -0800 To: "Greg Shepherd" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on h665227.serverkompetenz.net X-Spam-Level: X-Qmail-Scanner-MOVED-X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=20.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to consider the draft "frozen". Couldn't care less how to express that formally. Regards, Stephan On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > Greetings, > > We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year is > about gone... > > It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for > draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn going > forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call. > > A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five references; > one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The IETF-ID > tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last > Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call. > > But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the req > draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a thing > as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits. > > So, please - read and respond. > > Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was presented and > received a humming acceptance for adoption. > > Again, read and respond please. > > Thanks! > Greg > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 07 22:08:00 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsW5g-000847-Lf; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:08:00 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsW5f-000842-Ko for fecframe@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:07:59 -0500 Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.66]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsW5e-0003S2-9L for fecframe@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:07:59 -0500 Received: from [67.101.41.28] (helo=[192.168.1.68]) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.34) id 1GsW5Z-0004i3-6N; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:07:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Mark Watson Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Next steps.. Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:07:48 -0800 To: Stephan Wenger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-ELNK-Trace: 80c540174fc8a6625f7341696a6c3e37239a348a220c2609188beca2c1bff690125a38151a4084a6387f7b89c61deb1d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 67.101.41.28 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't mean we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we all understand what that actually means, which is just that it will form the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for further changes. I think you need to qualify that hum on draft-watson-fecframe- framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*. ...Mark On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to > consider the draft "frozen". Couldn't care less how to express > that formally. > Regards, > Stephan > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year is >> about gone... >> >> It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for >> draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn going >> forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call. >> >> A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five references; >> one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The IETF-ID >> tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last >> Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call. >> >> But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the req >> draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a >> thing >> as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits. >> >> So, please - read and respond. >> >> Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was presented and >> received a humming acceptance for adoption. >> >> Again, read and respond please. >> >> Thanks! >> Greg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 07 22:37:46 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsWYU-0002Wx-Dj; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:37:46 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsWYT-0002Wr-Ci for fecframe@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:37:45 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.174]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsWYS-0002hk-1T for fecframe@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:37:45 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 72so606927ugd for ; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:37:43 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hNelon26OC/oalOLSy2X70q/ZkyvApvHTZIdKZPPlhATyOpiiWHZ4g+pFLpxOvjMFHlD7XcttAnizptmF0Fv8rpQouCRmlYwWCrprOwxGOxuhRDmP1yvzFxdjG7jNHAPcDvXMzFiBmzuu6EZoJ5O3WBGFyeI05D9KRKiCZWoZqM= Received: by 10.78.185.7 with SMTP id i7mr237542huf.1165549062803; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:37:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.100.17 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:37:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540612071937kc7aa1d1x6da67d9897bc4691@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:37:42 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Mark Watson" Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Next steps.. In-Reply-To: <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On 12/7/06, Mark Watson wrote: > I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't mean > we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we all > understand what that actually means, which is just that it will form > the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for further changes. Agreed. I suppose I was imagining a official "frozen" status would let it live in draft form without expiration. Other than that I see little benefit > I think you need to qualify that hum on draft-watson-fecframe- > framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*. Yes, thanks! Greg > ...Mark > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > > > I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to > > consider the draft "frozen". Couldn't care less how to express > > that formally. > > Regards, > > Stephan > > > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > > >> Greetings, > >> > >> We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year is > >> about gone... > >> > >> It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for > >> draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn going > >> forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call. > >> > >> A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five references; > >> one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The IETF-ID > >> tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last > >> Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call. > >> > >> But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the req > >> draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a > >> thing > >> as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits. > >> > >> So, please - read and respond. > >> > >> Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was presented and > >> received a humming acceptance for adoption. > >> > >> Again, read and respond please. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> Greg > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Fecframe mailing list > >> Fecframe@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 08 08:20:56 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsfeq-0002p3-F6; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:20:56 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsfep-0002ni-9X for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:20:55 -0500 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsfel-00058q-Kb for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:20:55 -0500 Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP id 5842943; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:20:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <1B70DC28-14CA-4995-AE2E-288279192505@multicasttech.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marshall Eubanks Subject: WGLC to "freeze" draft-fecframe-req-01.txt - was [Fecframe] Next steps.. Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:20:36 -0500 To: Mark Watson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hello; On Dec 7, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Mark Watson wrote: > I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't > mean we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we > all understand what that actually means, which is just that it will > form the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for > further changes. > I think it is appropriate to have a Working Group Last Call to "freeze" this document. WGLCs are generally 2 weeks, so this would end on the 22nd of December, at 5:00 PM PST. Please read draft-fecframe-req-01.txt and make comments during this period. Regards Marshall > I think you need to qualify that hum on draft-watson-fecframe- > framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*. > > ...Mark > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > >> I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to >> consider the draft "frozen". Couldn't care less how to express >> that formally. >> Regards, >> Stephan >> >> On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year is >>> about gone... >>> >>> It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for >>> draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn going >>> forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call. >>> >>> A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five references; >>> one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The IETF-ID >>> tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last >>> Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call. >>> >>> But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the >>> req >>> draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a >>> thing >>> as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits. >>> >>> So, please - read and respond. >>> >>> Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was presented and >>> received a humming acceptance for adoption. >>> >>> Again, read and respond please. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Greg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fecframe mailing list >>> Fecframe@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 08 10:29:10 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gshes-0002CA-G5; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:29:06 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsher-0002C4-7M for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:29:05 -0500 Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.204.225]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsheo-0005he-Ny for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:29:05 -0500 Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id q12so212433qba for ; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:29:00 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=c4/1yoMYht8NcVw4jmuTGINredgj2sK0Obb0sXYYZmVQbX+TBkv5Up1iluctCGPrc2rkhQWwDvU6wdaNzD8wKXuxnIoZJDbx2jDJM9wjK64a+pV1TCFqbOVO67HRMVYRg6opW4JO0tDxniVF5gyDpGCT44ZDdpacU3i450WlYIY= Received: by 10.64.249.18 with SMTP id w18mr5869314qbh.1165591740078; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:29:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.251.19 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 07:29:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6e9223710612080729m12abc5b7n6aee0d227d2aa6a5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:29:00 -0500 From: "stephen botzko" To: "Marshall Eubanks" Subject: Re: WGLC to "freeze" draft-fecframe-req-01.txt - was [Fecframe] Next steps.. In-Reply-To: <1B70DC28-14CA-4995-AE2E-288279192505@multicasttech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> <1B70DC28-14CA-4995-AE2E-288279192505@multicasttech.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1613411735==" Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org --===============1613411735== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_41825_10543594.1165591740029" ------=_Part_41825_10543594.1165591740029 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi All Someone in San Diego said that the normal practice was to leave the requirements open until the framework draft was complete. That allowed the requirements to be revised if new requirements were discovered during the development of the draft. I'm just a newbie, so I don't know the ins and outs of the procedures. But that approach seemed to have merit to me. Does the "freeze" you are talking about preclude such revisions? If so, it would seem to me that we'd be better off simply letting the requirements document lie fallow instead of formally "freezing" it. Any event, I have no issues at the present time with the current requirements document. Regards, Steve Botzko On 12/8/06, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > Hello; > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Mark Watson wrote: > > > I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't > > mean we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we > > all understand what that actually means, which is just that it will > > form the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for > > further changes. > > > > I think it is appropriate to have a Working Group Last Call to > "freeze" this document. WGLCs are generally 2 weeks, so this would > end on the 22nd of December, at 5:00 PM PST. > > Please read draft-fecframe-req-01.txt and make comments during this > period. > > Regards > Marshall > > > > I think you need to qualify that hum on draft-watson-fecframe- > > framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*. > > > > ...Mark > > > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > > > >> I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to > >> consider the draft "frozen". Couldn't care less how to express > >> that formally. > >> Regards, > >> Stephan > >> > >> On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > >> > >>> Greetings, > >>> > >>> We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year is > >>> about gone... > >>> > >>> It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for > >>> draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn going > >>> forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call. > >>> > >>> A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five references; > >>> one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The IETF-ID > >>> tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last > >>> Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call. > >>> > >>> But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the > >>> req > >>> draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a > >>> thing > >>> as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits. > >>> > >>> So, please - read and respond. > >>> > >>> Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was presented and > >>> received a humming acceptance for adoption. > >>> > >>> Again, read and respond please. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Fecframe mailing list > >>> Fecframe@ietf.org > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Fecframe mailing list > >> Fecframe@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > ------=_Part_41825_10543594.1165591740029 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Hi All
 
Someone in San Diego said that the normal practice was to leave the requirements open until the framework draft was complete.  That allowed the requirements to be revised if new requirements were discovered during the development of the draft.
 
I'm just a newbie, so I don't know the ins and outs of the procedures.  But that approach seemed to have merit to me. 
 
Does the "freeze" you are talking about preclude such revisions?  If so, it would seem to me that we'd be better off simply letting the requirements document lie fallow instead of formally "freezing" it.
 
Any event, I have no issues at the present time with the current requirements document. 
 
Regards,
Steve Botzko
 
On 12/8/06, Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
Hello;

On Dec 7, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Mark Watson wrote:

> I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't
> mean we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we
> all understand what that actually means, which is just that it will
> form the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for
> further changes.
>

I think it is appropriate to have a Working Group Last Call to
"freeze" this document. WGLCs are generally 2 weeks, so this would
end on the 22nd of December, at 5:00 PM PST.

Please read draft-fecframe-req-01.txt and make comments during this
period.

Regards
Marshall


> I think you need to qualify that hum on draft-watson-fecframe-
> framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*.
>
> ...Mark
>
> On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
>> I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to
>> consider the draft "frozen".  Couldn't care less how to express
>> that formally.
>> Regards,
>> Stephan
>>
>> On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year is
>>> about gone...
>>>
>>> It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for
>>> draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn going
>>> forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call.
>>>
>>> A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five references;
>>> one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The IETF-ID
>>> tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last
>>> Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call.
>>>
>>> But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the
>>> req
>>> draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a
>>> thing
>>> as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits.
>>>
>>> So, please - read and respond.
>>>
>>> Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was presented and
>>> received a humming acceptance for adoption.
>>>
>>> Again, read and respond please.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fecframe mailing list
>>> Fecframe@ietf.org
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fecframe mailing list
>> Fecframe@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> Fecframe@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe


_______________________________________________
Fecframe mailing list
Fecframe@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe

------=_Part_41825_10543594.1165591740029-- --===============1613411735== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --===============1613411735==-- From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 08 10:41:05 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GshqT-0007sc-2n; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:41:05 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GshqR-0007sX-Mi for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:41:03 -0500 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.229] helo=nz-out-0102.google.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GshqP-0007II-Ay for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:41:03 -0500 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id z6so575923nzd for ; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:41:01 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=VccX3BBndbxnIjoHKWq5qwUtATuk3dY10wkXOh1wLjDjYgLxhLOqfbLbD6LqYe2d7WUNPTyix/CEozxIIzW1t/AYZvQcuPPOThKVxU6TtrFO619Ie1A2cUoFBS/NYIC0fF3r2tcu+yAnsIncqfyTLtZQoclhh8zrblHy8W57d3A= Received: by 10.78.47.15 with SMTP id u15mr1736956huu.1165592459760; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:40:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.100.13 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 07:40:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540612080740s244aab58oa5b0e49cdeaebf16@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 07:40:59 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "stephen botzko" Subject: Re: WGLC to "freeze" draft-fecframe-req-01.txt - was [Fecframe] Next steps.. In-Reply-To: <6e9223710612080729m12abc5b7n6aee0d227d2aa6a5@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> <1B70DC28-14CA-4995-AE2E-288279192505@multicasttech.com> <6e9223710612080729m12abc5b7n6aee0d227d2aa6a5@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 22bbb45ef41b733eb2d03ee71ece8243 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org It was suggested to me to do a working group last call, and send it to the IESG with a note to our ADs not to do anything with it. Once a draft is in IESG review it doesn't expire, but can still be updated. Greg On 12/8/06, stephen botzko wrote: > Hi All > > Someone in San Diego said that the normal practice was to leave the > requirements open until the framework draft was complete. That allowed the > requirements to be revised if new requirements were discovered during the > development of the draft. > > I'm just a newbie, so I don't know the ins and outs of the procedures. But > that approach seemed to have merit to me. > > Does the "freeze" you are talking about preclude such revisions? If so, it > would seem to me that we'd be better off simply letting the requirements > document lie fallow instead of formally "freezing" it. > > Any event, I have no issues at the present time with the current > requirements document. > > Regards, > Steve Botzko > > > On 12/8/06, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > Hello; > > > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Mark Watson wrote: > > > > > I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't > > > mean we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we > > > all understand what that actually means, which is just that it will > > > form the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for > > > further changes. > > > > > > > I think it is appropriate to have a Working Group Last Call to > > "freeze" this document. WGLCs are generally 2 weeks, so this would > > end on the 22nd of December, at 5:00 PM PST. > > > > Please read draft-fecframe-req-01.txt and make comments during this > > period. > > > > Regards > > Marshall > > > > > > > I think you need to qualify that hum on draft-watson-fecframe- > > > framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*. > > > > > > ...Mark > > > > > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > > > > > >> I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to > > >> consider the draft "frozen". Couldn't care less how to express > > >> that formally. > > >> Regards, > > >> Stephan > > >> > > >> On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > >> > > >>> Greetings, > > >>> > > >>> We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year is > > >>> about gone... > > >>> > > >>> It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for > > >>> draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn going > > >>> forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call. > > >>> > > >>> A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five references; > > >>> one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The IETF-ID > > >>> tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last > > >>> Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call. > > >>> > > >>> But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the > > >>> req > > >>> draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a > > >>> thing > > >>> as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits. > > >>> > > >>> So, please - read and respond. > > >>> > > >>> Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was > presented and > > >>> received a humming acceptance for adoption. > > >>> > > >>> Again, read and respond please. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks! > > >>> Greg > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Fecframe mailing list > > >>> Fecframe@ietf.org > > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Fecframe mailing list > > >> Fecframe@ietf.org > > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Fecframe mailing list > > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 08 10:43:21 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gshsf-0000SB-NY; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:43:21 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gshse-0000O4-Eo for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:43:20 -0500 Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com ([72.14.246.250]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gshsb-0007de-TH for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:43:20 -0500 Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 8so515775agc for ; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:43:15 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=NMRKYJOjRuJQF/f8pz88kGUFeeIHY6wjRL7VzBj1Bwz+oVwVTIA5uoEF5qbWicULfc0Tpbv93URXqRIT3yWjCasYcHFkDH5wlS4RmGhKOtngNBMtcUVTg+eZiRJeiHO6XcyKHYgCWQ7Lc4WLC/XNIweDQccJJ1PZ/KYn+cLkePk= Received: by 10.90.70.10 with SMTP id s10mr4267537aga.1165592595422; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:43:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.251.19 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 07:43:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6e9223710612080743u3ad182ep9f4ee0c14f3c84af@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:43:15 -0500 From: "stephen botzko" To: "Greg Shepherd" Subject: Re: WGLC to "freeze" draft-fecframe-req-01.txt - was [Fecframe] Next steps.. In-Reply-To: <38c19b540612080740s244aab58oa5b0e49cdeaebf16@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> <1B70DC28-14CA-4995-AE2E-288279192505@multicasttech.com> <6e9223710612080729m12abc5b7n6aee0d227d2aa6a5@mail.gmail.com> <38c19b540612080740s244aab58oa5b0e49cdeaebf16@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a92270ba83d7ead10c5001bb42ec3221 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1744409065==" Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org --===============1744409065== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_42033_19894111.1165592595327" ------=_Part_42033_19894111.1165592595327 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sounds good. Steve B. On 12/8/06, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > It was suggested to me to do a working group last call, and send it to > the IESG with a note to our ADs not to do anything with it. Once a > draft is in IESG review it doesn't expire, but can still be updated. > > Greg > > On 12/8/06, stephen botzko wrote: > > Hi All > > > > Someone in San Diego said that the normal practice was to leave the > > requirements open until the framework draft was complete. That allowed > the > > requirements to be revised if new requirements were discovered during > the > > development of the draft. > > > > I'm just a newbie, so I don't know the ins and outs of the > procedures. But > > that approach seemed to have merit to me. > > > > Does the "freeze" you are talking about preclude such revisions? If so, > it > > would seem to me that we'd be better off simply letting the requirements > > document lie fallow instead of formally "freezing" it. > > > > Any event, I have no issues at the present time with the current > > requirements document. > > > > Regards, > > Steve Botzko > > > > > > On 12/8/06, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > > Hello; > > > > > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Mark Watson wrote: > > > > > > > I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't > > > > mean we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we > > > > all understand what that actually means, which is just that it will > > > > form the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for > > > > further changes. > > > > > > > > > > I think it is appropriate to have a Working Group Last Call to > > > "freeze" this document. WGLCs are generally 2 weeks, so this would > > > end on the 22nd of December, at 5:00 PM PST. > > > > > > Please read draft-fecframe-req-01.txt and make comments during this > > > period. > > > > > > Regards > > > Marshall > > > > > > > > > > I think you need to qualify that hum on draft-watson-fecframe- > > > > framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*. > > > > > > > > ...Mark > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > > > > > > > >> I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to > > > >> consider the draft "frozen". Couldn't care less how to express > > > >> that formally. > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Stephan > > > >> > > > >> On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Greetings, > > > >>> > > > >>> We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year > is > > > >>> about gone... > > > >>> > > > >>> It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for > > > >>> draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn > going > > > >>> forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call. > > > >>> > > > >>> A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five > references; > > > >>> one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The > IETF-ID > > > >>> tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last > > > >>> Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call. > > > >>> > > > >>> But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the > > > >>> req > > > >>> draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a > > > >>> thing > > > >>> as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits. > > > >>> > > > >>> So, please - read and respond. > > > >>> > > > >>> Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was > > presented and > > > >>> received a humming acceptance for adoption. > > > >>> > > > >>> Again, read and respond please. > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks! > > > >>> Greg > > > >>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> Fecframe mailing list > > > >>> Fecframe@ietf.org > > > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Fecframe mailing list > > > >> Fecframe@ietf.org > > > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Fecframe mailing list > > > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Fecframe mailing list > > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > > > ------=_Part_42033_19894111.1165592595327 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Sounds good.
 
Steve B.

 
On 12/8/06, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> wrote:
It was suggested to me to do a working group last call, and send it to
the IESG with a note to our ADs not to do anything with it. Once a
draft is in IESG review it doesn't expire, but can still be updated.

Greg

On 12/8/06, stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Someone in San Diego said that the normal practice was to leave the
> requirements open until the framework draft was complete.  That allowed the
> requirements to be revised if new requirements were discovered during the
> development of the draft.
>
> I'm just a newbie, so I don't know the ins and outs of the procedures.  But
> that approach seemed to have merit to me.
>
> Does the "freeze" you are talking about preclude such revisions?  If so, it
> would seem to me that we'd be better off simply letting the requirements
> document lie fallow instead of formally "freezing" it.
>
> Any event, I have no issues at the present time with the current
> requirements document.
>
> Regards,
> Steve Botzko
>
>
> On 12/8/06, Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
> > Hello;
> >
> > On Dec 7, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
> >
> > > I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't
> > > mean we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we
> > > all understand what that actually means, which is just that it will
> > > form the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for
> > > further changes.
> > >
> >
> > I think it is appropriate to have a Working Group Last Call to
> > "freeze" this document. WGLCs are generally 2 weeks, so this would
> > end on the 22nd of December, at 5:00 PM PST.
> >
> > Please read draft-fecframe-req-01.txt and make comments during this
> > period.
> >
> > Regards
> > Marshall
> >
> >
> > > I think you need to qualify that hum on draft-watson-fecframe-
> > > framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*.
> > >
> > > ...Mark
> > >
> > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to
> > >> consider the draft "frozen".  Couldn't care less how to express
> > >> that formally.
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Stephan
> > >>
> > >> On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Greetings,
> > >>>
> > >>> We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year is
> > >>> about gone...
> > >>>
> > >>> It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for
> > >>> draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn going
> > >>> forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call.
> > >>>
> > >>> A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five references;
> > >>> one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The IETF-ID
> > >>> tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last
> > >>> Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call.
> > >>>
> > >>> But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the
> > >>> req
> > >>> draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a
> > >>> thing
> > >>> as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, please - read and respond.
> > >>>
> > >>> Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was
> presented and
> > >>> received a humming acceptance for adoption.
> > >>>
> > >>> Again, read and respond please.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks!
> > >>> Greg
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Fecframe mailing list
> > >>> Fecframe@ietf.org
> > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Fecframe mailing list
> > >> Fecframe@ietf.org
> > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Fecframe mailing list
> > > Fecframe@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fecframe mailing list
> > Fecframe@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> Fecframe@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
>
>
>

------=_Part_42033_19894111.1165592595327-- --===============1744409065== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --===============1744409065==-- From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 08 10:50:05 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gshz7-000264-1i; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:50:01 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gshz5-00025t-Mg for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:49:59 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gshyw-0008Im-39 for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:49:59 -0500 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.120]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 13EEFB93; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:49:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:49:42 +0100 Received: from [147.214.30.247] ([147.214.30.247]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:49:41 +0100 Message-ID: <45798995.6060403@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:49:41 +0100 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Shepherd Subject: Re: WGLC to "freeze" draft-fecframe-req-01.txt - was [Fecframe] Next steps.. References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> <1B70DC28-14CA-4995-AE2E-288279192505@multicasttech.com> <6e9223710612080729m12abc5b7n6aee0d227d2aa6a5@mail.gmail.com> <38c19b540612080740s244aab58oa5b0e49cdeaebf16@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <38c19b540612080740s244aab58oa5b0e49cdeaebf16@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2006 15:49:41.0724 (UTC) FILETIME=[798711C0:01C71AE0] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Greg Shepherd skrev: > It was suggested to me to do a working group last call, and send it to > the IESG with a note to our ADs not to do anything with it. Once a > draft is in IESG review it doesn't expire, but can still be updated. > Hmmm, It will show up as bad case in the IESG statistics ;-). I would prefer that the WG kept it alive themselves. It shouldn't need that many bumping of the revision number during the time until you complete the solution. The freeze call is not commonly done. However I think it is a good idea that enable the WG to have a document that was agreed and consensus at a particular time. While still not being cast in stone as the development on the solution progress. If the WG see the need they can update the requirements and do a new freeze call to ensure that there is consensus on the updated version. Cheers Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 08 11:47:24 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsise-00019A-0M; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:47:24 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsisc-000191-M9 for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:47:22 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsisb-00009S-CE for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:47:22 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 72so739707ugd for ; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:47:20 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XqmdiPXNl5TNguh3Tf540cVhPA2eesV5ZErMRT5W1QWGMIfs3PmobG6SDAW86aMC2UjJKHzJHyGGUZ9Ut6EVifdulRBlDO3TkWgGWjoUrj+D1owo4xCzXn7Nzy/viffkklLEWjNTdpInmAlP5GCC1SVLwDHy5amfI9ZQUe52U/Q= Received: by 10.78.203.13 with SMTP id a13mr310247hug.1165596440049; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.100.13 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:47:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540612080847x52334d02yb2708c0c4ba7f6d5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:47:19 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Magnus Westerlund" Subject: Re: WGLC to "freeze" draft-fecframe-req-01.txt - was [Fecframe] Next steps.. In-Reply-To: <45798995.6060403@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> <1B70DC28-14CA-4995-AE2E-288279192505@multicasttech.com> <6e9223710612080729m12abc5b7n6aee0d227d2aa6a5@mail.gmail.com> <38c19b540612080740s244aab58oa5b0e49cdeaebf16@mail.gmail.com> <45798995.6060403@ericsson.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On 12/8/06, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > Greg Shepherd skrev: > > It was suggested to me to do a working group last call, and send it to > > the IESG with a note to our ADs not to do anything with it. Once a > > draft is in IESG review it doesn't expire, but can still be updated. > > > > Hmmm, > > It will show up as bad case in the IESG statistics ;-). I would prefer > that the WG kept it alive themselves. It shouldn't need that many > bumping of the revision number during the time until you complete the > solution. > > The freeze call is not commonly done. However I think it is a good idea > that enable the WG to have a document that was agreed and consensus at a > particular time. While still not being cast in stone as the development > on the solution progress. If the WG see the need they can update the > requirements and do a new freeze call to ensure that there is consensus > on the updated version. > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund The AD has spoken. :) Okay, no trouble. We'll bump as necessary. So I suppose the freeze-call is an internal WG state and not an official IESG state? Thanks, Greg > IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 > Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 > S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 08 12:57:32 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsjyW-00049w-Fl; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:57:32 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsjyV-00049r-2Y for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:57:31 -0500 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.234]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsjyT-0001oF-TH for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:57:31 -0500 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i7so1084737wra for ; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:57:29 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=ljlroqyxI9N4FsdgvyA2MJwZ/SWggwa0tLptZzH262gx32fWMGsPdpawypb8d+6OhI4gxdCInlH2q5P+2Fa/EZVWjMrL4JBOfSDbGNquORHl8PVJ2OYhHbmBaA9kwOjGVdvfWckVS5gGyL39CU0C7ZAfA+6cWhgXMo+PPTmDk7o= Received: by 10.78.201.2 with SMTP id y2mr319686huf.1165600648510; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:57:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.100.13 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 09:57:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540612080957x5e7a41bka3d337cac09451a1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 09:57:28 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: fecframe@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Subject: [Fecframe] Vacation Dec 17th - 29th X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org ..off to warmer weather. Enjoy, Greg _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 08 19:27:20 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsq3f-0001a3-QG; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:27:15 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsq3e-0001Zy-Jb for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:27:14 -0500 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gsq3d-0008Jt-BO for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:27:14 -0500 Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP id 5845896; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:27:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <38c19b540612071937kc7aa1d1x6da67d9897bc4691@mail.gmail.com> References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> <38c19b540612071937kc7aa1d1x6da67d9897bc4691@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <52E27EC4-E2BB-4A28-8272-72A35E956169@multicasttech.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marshall Eubanks Subject: WG Adoption of draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt - was Re: [Fecframe] Next steps.. Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 19:27:10 -0500 To: Greg Shepherd X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org My feeling is that there was consensus at the meeting to adopt draft- watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt as a working group document. This needs to be ratified by the list. This is a mini call for comments on this matter, which will expire 5 PM PST Friday Dec 15. If you agree, and especially if you disagree, please speak up. Of course, comments on the document text are also appropriate and welcomed. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Dec 7, 2006, at 10:37 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > On 12/7/06, Mark Watson wrote: >> I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't mean >> we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we all >> understand what that actually means, which is just that it will form >> the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for further >> changes. > > Agreed. I suppose I was imagining a official "frozen" status would let > it live in draft form without expiration. Other than that I see little > benefit > >> I think you need to qualify that hum on draft-watson-fecframe- >> framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*. > > Yes, thanks! > > Greg > >> ...Mark >> >> On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: >> >> > I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to >> > consider the draft "frozen". Couldn't care less how to express >> > that formally. >> > Regards, >> > Stephan >> > >> > On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >> > >> >> Greetings, >> >> >> >> We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this >> year is >> >> about gone... >> >> >> >> It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for >> >> draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn >> going >> >> forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call. >> >> >> >> A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five >> references; >> >> one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The >> IETF-ID >> >> tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last >> >> Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call. >> >> >> >> But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for >> the req >> >> draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a >> >> thing >> >> as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits. >> >> >> >> So, please - read and respond. >> >> >> >> Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was presented and >> >> received a humming acceptance for adoption. >> >> >> >> Again, read and respond please. >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Fecframe mailing list >> >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Fecframe mailing list >> > Fecframe@ietf.org >> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 11 03:38:32 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtggB-00042F-UQ; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:38:31 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtggA-000421-Um for fecframe@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:38:30 -0500 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gtgg4-0003co-Ct for fecframe@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:38:30 -0500 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.120]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 31ACDAC7; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:09:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:08:57 +0100 Received: from [147.214.30.247] ([147.214.30.247]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:08:57 +0100 Message-ID: <457D1219.9050901@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:08:57 +0100 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Shepherd Subject: Re: WGLC to "freeze" draft-fecframe-req-01.txt - was [Fecframe] Next steps.. References: <38c19b540612071735q552e205el38ecad46aeb8b3cb@mail.gmail.com> <26EBB276-A3BB-4727-9000-B11FF3D9CC9D@stewe.org> <48405AC9-C9CB-4279-A94B-3FF8003A9D96@digitalfountain.com> <1B70DC28-14CA-4995-AE2E-288279192505@multicasttech.com> <6e9223710612080729m12abc5b7n6aee0d227d2aa6a5@mail.gmail.com> <38c19b540612080740s244aab58oa5b0e49cdeaebf16@mail.gmail.com> <45798995.6060403@ericsson.com> <38c19b540612080847x52334d02yb2708c0c4ba7f6d5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <38c19b540612080847x52334d02yb2708c0c4ba7f6d5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2006 08:08:57.0399 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B771470:01C71CFB] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Greg Shepherd skrev: > On 12/8/06, Magnus Westerlund wrote: >> Greg Shepherd skrev: >> > It was suggested to me to do a working group last call, and send it to >> > the IESG with a note to our ADs not to do anything with it. Once a >> > draft is in IESG review it doesn't expire, but can still be updated. >> > >> >> Hmmm, >> >> It will show up as bad case in the IESG statistics ;-). I would prefer >> that the WG kept it alive themselves. It shouldn't need that many >> bumping of the revision number during the time until you complete the >> solution. >> >> The freeze call is not commonly done. However I think it is a good idea >> that enable the WG to have a document that was agreed and consensus at a >> particular time. While still not being cast in stone as the development >> on the solution progress. If the WG see the need they can update the >> requirements and do a new freeze call to ensure that there is consensus >> on the updated version. >> >> Cheers >> >> Magnus Westerlund > > The AD has spoken. :) > > Okay, no trouble. We'll bump as necessary. So I suppose the > freeze-call is an internal WG state and not an official IESG state? > Correct. Cheers Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe