From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Jun 1 09:30:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietf.org Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 05DF628C179; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:30:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100601163003.05DF628C179@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] I-D Action:draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-08.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:30:06 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the FEC Framework Working Group of the IETF. Title : Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework Author(s) : M. Watson Filename : draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-08.txt Pages : 40 Date : 2010-06-01 This document describes a framework for using forward error correction (FEC) codes with applications in public and private IP networks to provide protection against packet loss. The framework supports applying Forward Error Correction to arbitrary packet flows over unreliable transport and is primarily intended for real-time, or streaming, media. This framework can be used to define Content Delivery Protocols that provide Forward Error Correction for streaming media delivery or other packet flows. Content Delivery Protocols defined using this framework can support any FEC Scheme (and associated FEC codes) which is compliant with various requirements defined in this document. Thus, Content Delivery Protocols can be defined which are not specific to a particular FEC Scheme and FEC Schemes can be defined which are not specific to a particular Content Delivery Protocol. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-06-01092605.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From watson@qualcomm.com Tue Jun 1 09:34:19 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF2B28C189 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:34:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id anTat7xYJw6i for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEF228C1A5 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=watson@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1275410018; x=1306946018; h=from:to:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:mime-version; z=From:=20"Watson,=20Mark"=20|To:=20" gjshep@gmail.com"=20,=20"fecframe@ietf. org"=0D=0A=09|Date:=20Tue,=201=20Jun =202010=2009:33:32=20-0700|Subject:=20Re:=20[Fecframe]=20 WG=20Last-call:=20draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 |Thread-Topic:=20[Fecframe]=20WG=20Last-call:=20draft-iet f-fecframe-framework-07|Thread-Index:=20AcsBqC5IHrNL6prXS t6y6ruUk6is9Q=3D=3D|Message-ID:=20<43BA3521-5555-448F-A70 E-E73AC4413EED@qualcomm.com>|References:=20=0D=0A=20 =0D=0A=20=0D=0A=20<4BF1670B.5020606@inrial pes.fr>=0D=0A=20=0D=0A=20<076565BB-9EFE-464C-8E53-43 EC6644B0E6@qualcomm.com>=0D=0A=20<4EEBD313-3F13-4BFF-BBE1 -192FFC2A663C@nomor.de>=0D=0A=20|In-Reply-To:=20|Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en-US |X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|acceptlanguage: =20en-US|Content-Type:=20multipart/alternative=3B=0D=0A =09boundary=3D"_000_43BA35215555448FA70EE73AC4413EEDqualc ommcom_"|MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=EC6nb8GDfzGiF5sc9GYS8Mak6OtmA3wIgDX9+7zZ8v0=; b=PFtSlk8CdWc13DlYFpVwlgx6hoUmQcWyaS8Fklh8tGOuQRSIW55DkxsJ 2ZthlQ4qbIvBbUcEvWu2at0/EYjKjMgDN3N+msEYQyksQHCBFOEJ/wpjJ eRREvI1XMxsKr9In7dDEX0J5IkdKpqY1SvcxQ0Bd90aHQLEAkQTj22Bqb U=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6000"; a="42995203" Received: from ironmsg01-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.15]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2010 09:33:35 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,340,1272870000"; d="scan'208,217";a="44875941" Received: from nasanexhub02.na.qualcomm.com ([10.46.143.120]) by ironmsg01-r.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 01 Jun 2010 09:33:35 -0700 Received: from nasclexhc01.na.qualcomm.com (10.227.147.14) by nasanexhub02.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.143.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:33:35 -0700 Received: from NASCLEXMB02.na.qualcomm.com ([10.227.144.112]) by nasclexhc01.na.qualcomm.com ([10.227.147.14]) with mapi; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:33:35 -0700 From: "Watson, Mark" To: "gjshep@gmail.com" , "fecframe@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:33:32 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 Thread-Index: AcsBqC5IHrNL6prXSt6y6ruUk6is9Q== Message-ID: <43BA3521-5555-448F-A70E-E73AC4413EED@qualcomm.com> References: <4BF1670B.5020606@inrialpes.fr> <076565BB-9EFE-464C-8E53-43EC6644B0E6@qualcomm.com> <4EEBD313-3F13-4BFF-BBE1-192FFC2A663C@nomor.de> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_43BA35215555448FA70EE73AC4413EEDqualcommcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:34:19 -0000 --_000_43BA35215555448FA70EE73AC4413EEDqualcommcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greg, All, I have submitted a new version -08, which addresses the Last Call comments = from Vincent and which uses the latest copyright boilerplate. The draft is at: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-08.tx= t and the diffs from the -07 at http://bit.ly/apYW5x. Aside from the editorial changes suggested by Vincent there are a couple of= improvements to the Security section. ...Mark On May 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: Thanks for jumping in here! Okay, I think we have enough feedback now to proceed. I'll post the shepherding doc this week. Greg On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Thomas Stockhammer > wrote: Mark, Greg, all I support this version to move forward ... Thomas On May 25, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Watson, Mark wrote: Well, in case it's not obvious - though I guess it is - I agree that this s= hould go forward. ...Mark On May 18, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: Thanks Vincent! Okay, that's two respondents. I can't move this forward without a few more of you responding. Please read and send your notes and/or approval to the list so we can move this to Pub Req ASAP! Thanks, Greg On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Vincent Roca > wrote: Mark, all, Since I already provided extensive comments on the previous version, I only gave a quick look to version 07. I'm happy with the new definitions (section 2) which are IMHO of utmost importance to harmonize the vocabulary used in all the FECFRAME I-Ds and to clarify the architectural concepts. Therefore I support this version. ** A few easy to fix typos for draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07: * in section 2 (Definitions): - in definition of "Application protocol", the sentence mentions "protocols" with a final "s", but only provides a single example. Using singular is probably sufficient, otherwise use "protocol(s)". - in definition of "FEC Scheme", I suggest (parenthesis misplacement): "(or in the context of RMT, with the RMT FEC Building Block)." - the 'Encoding symbol' definition appears twice (in the "source symbol" definition the 1st time). - there's an orphan "s" in 'Source Block' definition. BTW, the notion of source block is already defined above. I'd remove it from the general subsection to keep it in the RFC5052 specific part. ** a few additional comments for section 10 (security considerations) - Nothing is said about the possibility of forging the FEC Scheme Specific Information, another way of launching a DoS. - This section refers to "source transport payloads", which is no longer one of the official terms defined in section 2. - If integrity protection is required, I don't think it makes sense to apply it within the "Source Protocol" (application). As you explain, integrity MUST be verified by the receiver ASAP, before launching FEC decoding. Even if the FECFRAME instance is able to check the integrity of source symbols before launching decoding, it will not cover the explicit Source FEC Payload ID (if used) which is a big issue. To summarize: if integrity is a MUST, this MUST be done in lower layers, within the transport or IPsec (or similar) layers. - this section could be improved (it's a little bit light IMHO) but we can also wait for the secdir review. Regards, Vincent _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --- Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89 978980 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-= research.com Nomor Research GmbH - Sitz der Gesellschaft: M=FCnchen - Registergericht:= M=FCnchen, HRB 165856 =96 Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - Gesch=E4ftsf=FChr= er: Dr. Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering. --_000_43BA35215555448FA70EE73AC4413EEDqualcommcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greg, All,

<= div>I have submitted a new version -08, which addresses the Last Call comme= nts from Vincent and which uses the latest copyright boilerplate.

and the diffs from the -07= at ht= tp://bit.ly/apYW5x.

Aside from the editorial changes sug= gested by Vincent there are a couple of improvements to the Security sectio= n.

...Mark



On May 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote:

Thanks for jumping in= here! Okay, I think we have enough feedback now
to proceed. I'll post t= he shepherding doc this week.

Greg

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:= 23 AM, Thomas Stockhammer
<st= ockhammer@nomor.de> wrote:
Mark, Greg, = all

I support this version to move forward ...

Thomas

On May 25, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Watson, Mark wrote:
=

Well, in case it's not obvious - though I guess it is -= I agree that this should go forward.

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
...Mark
=

On = May 18, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote:

Thanks Vincent!
Okay, that's two respondents. I= can't move this forward without a few
more of you responding. Please read and send your notes and/or
approval to the list so we can m= ove this to Pub Req ASAP!

=
Thanks,
Greg

<= /blockquote>
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:55 AM, V= incent Roca <vincent.roca@i= nrialpes.fr> wrote:
Mark, all,


Since I alre= ady provided extensive comments on the previous version,
I only ga= ve a quick look to version 07.
I'm happy with the new definitions = (section 2) which are IMHO of utmost
importance to harmonize the v= ocabulary used in all the FECFRAME I-Ds
and to clarify the archite= ctural concepts.
=

Therefore I support this version.


** A few easy to fix typos for draft-ietf-fecframe-= framework-07:

* in section 2 (Definitions):
- in definition of "Application protocol", the sentence mentions
=
"protocols" with a final "s", but only provides a single example.
=
Using singular is probably sufficient, otherwise use "protocol(s)".

- in definition of "FEC Scheme", I suggest (parenthesis= misplacement):
<= blockquote type=3D"cite">"(or in the context of RMT, with the RMT FEC Build= ing Block)."

- the 'Encoding symbol' definition appears = twice (in the
"source symbol" definition the 1st time).
<= br>
- there's an orphan "s" in 'Source Block' definition. BTW, the
notion of source block is already defined above. I'd remove it
from the general subsection to keep it in the RFC5052 specific
part.

=

** a few additional comments for sectio= n 10 (security considerations)

- Nothing is said about t= he possibility of forging the FEC Scheme
Specific Information, ano= ther way of launching a DoS.

- This section refers to "s= ource transport payloads", which is no
longer one of the official = terms defined in section 2.

- If integrity protection is= required, I don't think it makes
sense to apply it within the "So= urce Protocol" (application).
As you explain, integrity MUST be ve= rified by the receiver ASAP,
before launching FEC decoding. Even i= f the FECFRAME instance is
able to check the integrity of source s= ymbols before launching
decoding, it will not cover the explicit S= ource FEC Payload ID
(if used) which is a big issue.
To s= ummarize: if integrity is a MUST, this MUST be done in lower
layer= s, within the  transport or IPsec (or similar) layers.

- this section could be improved (it's a little bit light IMHO)
<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
but we can also wait for the secdir review.
=


= Regards,

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
 Vincent
<= blockquote type=3D"cite">

_____________= __________________________________
Fecframe mailing list
= Fecframe@ietf.org
=
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/fecframe

_______________________________________________
Fecframe mailing list
Fecfram= e@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/= listinfo/fecframe

___________________________= ____________________
Fecframe mailing list
Fecframe@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe=

---
D= r. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stoc= khammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89 978980 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com
Nomor Research GmbH  -  S= itz der Gesellschaft: M=FCnchen - Registergericht: M=FCnchen, HRB 165856 = =96 Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer: Dr. Thomas Stockham= mer, Dr. Ingo Viering.






= --_000_43BA35215555448FA70EE73AC4413EEDqualcommcom_-- From gjshep@gmail.com Tue Jun 1 09:40:43 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B77B28C1C5 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:40:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hWeLEpQPaRyR for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f182.google.com (mail-yw0-f182.google.com [209.85.211.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E6128C1B5 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ywh12 with SMTP id 12so4816047ywh.19 for ; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 09:40:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1ovnO8VNJin4orctz6DpilY7gVqTv5n5MRU5TALfNbo=; b=AOZDJiOXQFsAak5saNKRM7/M3mjlFmP6La4apP/OY7Ke4y3mYhRQO/50ebsjPtMaC+ z23j3fmG6CLMwsxHMN0gt30bqEPkH3ogczFKcQKeWZAPigjsnqFBD3KJxJH1xXigBrIW aXf9HQ+ugS9eSgXBz+nZ0lvzYqNBqLClfnEjA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=aq4ZrIFoCN09AgeVCaFTpsK4EeP6U6bQY1LvY7hRp4Vw0TLAqsKb+H/ttXUHaqanQS rzXwbRrtgGP0t2t42fM4T6mbFLgBXrv3KewGIv/MCyupy/6F3/XExfIdtQyfnSS9CYwu vzjec2yDbNaSqfT6vPLevzjsXpLi6k27XNH9o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.1.140 with SMTP id 12mr1321094icg.27.1275410415869; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 09:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.157.196 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:40:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <43BA3521-5555-448F-A70E-E73AC4413EED@qualcomm.com> References: <4BF1670B.5020606@inrialpes.fr> <076565BB-9EFE-464C-8E53-43EC6644B0E6@qualcomm.com> <4EEBD313-3F13-4BFF-BBE1-192FFC2A663C@nomor.de> <43BA3521-5555-448F-A70E-E73AC4413EED@qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:40:15 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: "Watson, Mark" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "fecframe@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:40:43 -0000 Thanks! I'll finish up the Shepherd doc today and move it along. Greg On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Watson, Mark wrote: > Greg, All, > I have submitted a new version -08, which addresses the Last Call comment= s > from Vincent and which uses the latest copyright boilerplate. > The draft is at:=A0http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-0= 8.txt > and the diffs from the -07 at=A0http://bit.ly/apYW5x. > Aside from the editorial changes suggested by Vincent there are a couple = of > improvements to the Security section. > ...Mark > > > On May 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > Thanks for jumping in here! Okay, I think we have enough feedback now > to proceed. I'll post the shepherding doc this week. > > Greg > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Thomas Stockhammer > wrote: > > Mark, Greg, all > > I support this version to move forward ... > > Thomas > > On May 25, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Watson, Mark wrote: > > Well, in case it's not obvious - though I guess it is - I agree that this > should go forward. > > ...Mark > > On May 18, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > Thanks Vincent! > > Okay, that's two respondents. I can't move this forward without a few > > more of you responding. Please read and send your notes and/or > > approval to the list so we can move this to Pub Req ASAP! > > Thanks, > > Greg > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Vincent Roca > wrote: > > Mark, all, > > > Since I already provided extensive comments on the previous version, > > I only gave a quick look to version 07. > > I'm happy with the new definitions (section 2) which are IMHO of utmost > > importance to harmonize the vocabulary used in all the FECFRAME I-Ds > > and to clarify the architectural concepts. > > Therefore I support this version. > > > ** A few easy to fix typos for draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07: > > * in section 2 (Definitions): > > - in definition of "Application protocol", the sentence mentions > > "protocols" with a final "s", but only provides a single example. > > Using singular is probably sufficient, otherwise use "protocol(s)". > > - in definition of "FEC Scheme", I suggest (parenthesis misplacement): > > "(or in the context of RMT, with the RMT FEC Building Block)." > > - the 'Encoding symbol' definition appears twice (in the > > "source symbol" definition the 1st time). > > - there's an orphan "s" in 'Source Block' definition. BTW, the > > notion of source block is already defined above. I'd remove it > > from the general subsection to keep it in the RFC5052 specific > > part. > > > ** a few additional comments for section 10 (security considerations) > > - Nothing is said about the possibility of forging the FEC Scheme > > Specific Information, another way of launching a DoS. > > - This section refers to "source transport payloads", which is no > > longer one of the official terms defined in section 2. > > - If integrity protection is required, I don't think it makes > > sense to apply it within the "Source Protocol" (application). > > As you explain, integrity MUST be verified by the receiver ASAP, > > before launching FEC decoding. Even if the FECFRAME instance is > > able to check the integrity of source symbols before launching > > decoding, it will not cover the explicit Source FEC Payload ID > > (if used) which is a big issue. > > To summarize: if integrity is a MUST, this MUST be done in lower > > layers, within the =A0transport or IPsec (or similar) layers. > > - this section could be improved (it's a little bit light IMHO) > > but we can also wait for the secdir review. > > > Regards, > > =A0Vincent > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > --- > > Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89 9789= 80 > 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com > > Nomor Research GmbH =A0- =A0Sitz der Gesellschaft: M=FCnchen - Registerge= richt: > M=FCnchen, HRB 165856 =96 Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - Gesch=E4ftsf=FCh= rer: Dr. > Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering. > > > > > > > From rajiva@cisco.com Tue Jun 1 10:02:18 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06FA3A689F for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hNJ1uc3Hv3A1 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24EB53A68BC for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlwQAD7aBEytJV2a/2dsb2JhbACZTAOEXXGodIlUkDoChRQEg0iHUQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,341,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="116931134" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2010 17:02:04 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com [72.163.62.139]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o51H24bi030402; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:02:04 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:02:04 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:02:02 -0500 Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C01E62295@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 Thread-Index: AcsBqToAKM8Xq5okQ0+7o08me3M16gAAtBLQ References: <4BF1670B.5020606@inrialpes.fr><076565BB-9EFE-464C-8E53-43EC6644B0E6@qualcomm.com><4EEBD313-3F13-4BFF-BBE1-192FFC2A663C@nomor.de><43BA3521-5555-448F-A70E-E73AC4413EED@qualcomm.com> From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: , "Watson, Mark" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2010 17:02:04.0198 (UTC) FILETIME=[28E04460:01CB01AC] Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:02:19 -0000 Hi Greg, The latest config-signaling draft has incorporated all the outstanding = comments as well. Should that be moved along as well? Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Greg Shepherd > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 12:40 PM > To: Watson, Mark > Cc: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 >=20 > Thanks! I'll finish up the Shepherd doc today and move it along. >=20 > Greg >=20 > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Watson, Mark > wrote: > > Greg, All, > > I have submitted a new version -08, which addresses the Last Call > comments > > from Vincent and which uses the latest copyright boilerplate. > > The draft is at:=A0http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-fecframe- > framework-08.txt > > and the diffs from the -07 at=A0http://bit.ly/apYW5x. > > Aside from the editorial changes suggested by Vincent there are a > couple of > > improvements to the Security section. > > ...Mark > > > > > > On May 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > > > Thanks for jumping in here! Okay, I think we have enough feedback = now > > to proceed. I'll post the shepherding doc this week. > > > > Greg > > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Thomas Stockhammer > > wrote: > > > > Mark, Greg, all > > > > I support this version to move forward ... > > > > Thomas > > > > On May 25, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Watson, Mark wrote: > > > > Well, in case it's not obvious - though I guess it is - I agree that > this > > should go forward. > > > > ...Mark > > > > On May 18, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > > > Thanks Vincent! > > > > Okay, that's two respondents. I can't move this forward without a = few > > > > more of you responding. Please read and send your notes and/or > > > > approval to the list so we can move this to Pub Req ASAP! > > > > Thanks, > > > > Greg > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Vincent Roca > > > wrote: > > > > Mark, all, > > > > > > Since I already provided extensive comments on the previous version, > > > > I only gave a quick look to version 07. > > > > I'm happy with the new definitions (section 2) which are IMHO of > utmost > > > > importance to harmonize the vocabulary used in all the FECFRAME I-Ds > > > > and to clarify the architectural concepts. > > > > Therefore I support this version. > > > > > > ** A few easy to fix typos for draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07: > > > > * in section 2 (Definitions): > > > > - in definition of "Application protocol", the sentence mentions > > > > "protocols" with a final "s", but only provides a single example. > > > > Using singular is probably sufficient, otherwise use "protocol(s)". > > > > - in definition of "FEC Scheme", I suggest (parenthesis > misplacement): > > > > "(or in the context of RMT, with the RMT FEC Building Block)." > > > > - the 'Encoding symbol' definition appears twice (in the > > > > "source symbol" definition the 1st time). > > > > - there's an orphan "s" in 'Source Block' definition. BTW, the > > > > notion of source block is already defined above. I'd remove it > > > > from the general subsection to keep it in the RFC5052 specific > > > > part. > > > > > > ** a few additional comments for section 10 (security = considerations) > > > > - Nothing is said about the possibility of forging the FEC Scheme > > > > Specific Information, another way of launching a DoS. > > > > - This section refers to "source transport payloads", which is no > > > > longer one of the official terms defined in section 2. > > > > - If integrity protection is required, I don't think it makes > > > > sense to apply it within the "Source Protocol" (application). > > > > As you explain, integrity MUST be verified by the receiver ASAP, > > > > before launching FEC decoding. Even if the FECFRAME instance is > > > > able to check the integrity of source symbols before launching > > > > decoding, it will not cover the explicit Source FEC Payload ID > > > > (if used) which is a big issue. > > > > To summarize: if integrity is a MUST, this MUST be done in lower > > > > layers, within the =A0transport or IPsec (or similar) layers. > > > > - this section could be improved (it's a little bit light IMHO) > > > > but we can also wait for the secdir review. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > =A0Vincent > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Fecframe mailing list > > > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Fecframe mailing list > > > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Fecframe mailing list > > > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > --- > > > > Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89 > 978980 > > 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com > > > > Nomor Research GmbH =A0- =A0Sitz der Gesellschaft: M=FCnchen - > Registergericht: > > M=FCnchen, HRB 165856 - Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - = Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer: > Dr. > > Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From gjshep@gmail.com Tue Jun 1 10:15:34 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4E428C184 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SMyfv1IwxeCs for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A903D3A67D9 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so3911169gyh.31 for ; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 10:15:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=scVQlkhctozZvEWQnLZPbAPfQ07yn+wsR7EXN8RFTV8=; b=BAdfBe9qxmJBuQW2lYOO0HmM/7TFeEMW2iLk50QhR5p9PHE3QlG2v1FKNLi+cfWyCK Mi7mhJwewpSQ8+8N7pVNqsz+xLdKvAzscU/MFcB6g0Ch9z7jgMwq1ACa2xWpPVJKLQuo GeBoUnZMuHXYLGQivcgRoFoVH0+MaOQccyqXc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=U+XL81BlH9UrxH+lz7U0J3YvYLugI90t2SqosZHVwFjzoqETsoixmY9vlzwDlVf0cV IumZtpAA0kJgYXHy4JKTX6BJ6FmCka/WF6bISuZn9he9N1vtagsp9A7yzVuazBie4jyr KXLtnur+SedhEFULmzZHGBbMo/jvsxSYXY/CY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.177.133 with SMTP id bi5mr8112584ibb.83.1275412516249; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 10:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.157.196 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:15:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C01E62295@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> References: <4BF1670B.5020606@inrialpes.fr> <076565BB-9EFE-464C-8E53-43EC6644B0E6@qualcomm.com> <4EEBD313-3F13-4BFF-BBE1-192FFC2A663C@nomor.de> <43BA3521-5555-448F-A70E-E73AC4413EED@qualcomm.com> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C01E62295@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:15:16 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:15:34 -0000 We need to take it to WG Last Call first. I'll send a dedicated email to start the feedback thread. Greg On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wr= ote: > Hi Greg, > > The latest config-signaling draft has incorporated all the outstanding co= mments as well. Should that be moved along as well? > > > Cheers, > Rajiv > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Greg Shepherd >> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 12:40 PM >> To: Watson, Mark >> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 >> >> Thanks! I'll finish up the Shepherd doc today and move it along. >> >> Greg >> >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Watson, Mark >> wrote: >> > Greg, All, >> > I have submitted a new version -08, which addresses the Last Call >> comments >> > from Vincent and which uses the latest copyright boilerplate. >> > The draft is at:=A0http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-fecframe- >> framework-08.txt >> > and the diffs from the -07 at=A0http://bit.ly/apYW5x. >> > Aside from the editorial changes suggested by Vincent there are a >> couple of >> > improvements to the Security section. >> > ...Mark >> > >> > >> > On May 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >> > >> > Thanks for jumping in here! Okay, I think we have enough feedback now >> > to proceed. I'll post the shepherding doc this week. >> > >> > Greg >> > >> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Thomas Stockhammer >> > wrote: >> > >> > Mark, Greg, all >> > >> > I support this version to move forward ... >> > >> > Thomas >> > >> > On May 25, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Watson, Mark wrote: >> > >> > Well, in case it's not obvious - though I guess it is - I agree that >> this >> > should go forward. >> > >> > ...Mark >> > >> > On May 18, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >> > >> > Thanks Vincent! >> > >> > Okay, that's two respondents. I can't move this forward without a few >> > >> > more of you responding. Please read and send your notes and/or >> > >> > approval to the list so we can move this to Pub Req ASAP! >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Greg >> > >> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Vincent Roca >> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Mark, all, >> > >> > >> > Since I already provided extensive comments on the previous version, >> > >> > I only gave a quick look to version 07. >> > >> > I'm happy with the new definitions (section 2) which are IMHO of >> utmost >> > >> > importance to harmonize the vocabulary used in all the FECFRAME I-Ds >> > >> > and to clarify the architectural concepts. >> > >> > Therefore I support this version. >> > >> > >> > ** A few easy to fix typos for draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07: >> > >> > * in section 2 (Definitions): >> > >> > - in definition of "Application protocol", the sentence mentions >> > >> > "protocols" with a final "s", but only provides a single example. >> > >> > Using singular is probably sufficient, otherwise use "protocol(s)". >> > >> > - in definition of "FEC Scheme", I suggest (parenthesis >> misplacement): >> > >> > "(or in the context of RMT, with the RMT FEC Building Block)." >> > >> > - the 'Encoding symbol' definition appears twice (in the >> > >> > "source symbol" definition the 1st time). >> > >> > - there's an orphan "s" in 'Source Block' definition. BTW, the >> > >> > notion of source block is already defined above. I'd remove it >> > >> > from the general subsection to keep it in the RFC5052 specific >> > >> > part. >> > >> > >> > ** a few additional comments for section 10 (security considerations) >> > >> > - Nothing is said about the possibility of forging the FEC Scheme >> > >> > Specific Information, another way of launching a DoS. >> > >> > - This section refers to "source transport payloads", which is no >> > >> > longer one of the official terms defined in section 2. >> > >> > - If integrity protection is required, I don't think it makes >> > >> > sense to apply it within the "Source Protocol" (application). >> > >> > As you explain, integrity MUST be verified by the receiver ASAP, >> > >> > before launching FEC decoding. Even if the FECFRAME instance is >> > >> > able to check the integrity of source symbols before launching >> > >> > decoding, it will not cover the explicit Source FEC Payload ID >> > >> > (if used) which is a big issue. >> > >> > To summarize: if integrity is a MUST, this MUST be done in lower >> > >> > layers, within the =A0transport or IPsec (or similar) layers. >> > >> > - this section could be improved (it's a little bit light IMHO) >> > >> > but we can also wait for the secdir review. >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > =A0Vincent >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > >> > Fecframe mailing list >> > >> > Fecframe@ietf.org >> > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > >> > Fecframe mailing list >> > >> > Fecframe@ietf.org >> > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > >> > Fecframe mailing list >> > >> > Fecframe@ietf.org >> > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> > >> > --- >> > >> > Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89 >> 978980 >> > 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com >> > >> > Nomor Research GmbH =A0- =A0Sitz der Gesellschaft: M=FCnchen - >> Registergericht: >> > M=FCnchen, HRB 165856 - Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - Gesch=E4ftsf=FC= hrer: >> Dr. >> > Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > From rajiva@cisco.com Tue Jun 1 10:55:25 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D16E3A6A29 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:55:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iWHSOwxT9RPR for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38BA73A6A00 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlwQANvlBEytJV2Y/2dsb2JhbACZUAOEXXGoeYlUkDoChRQEg0iHUQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,341,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="116948218" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2010 17:55:10 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o51HtAmR002142; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:55:10 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:55:10 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:55:08 -0500 Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C01F1E325@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 Thread-Index: AcsBrgOsO/kZ9Cd/SUykel6hSIjZlAABYSdQ References: <4BF1670B.5020606@inrialpes.fr><076565BB-9EFE-464C-8E53-43EC6644B0E6@qualcomm.com><4EEBD313-3F13-4BFF-BBE1-192FFC2A663C@nomor.de><43BA3521-5555-448F-A70E-E73AC4413EED@qualcomm.com><067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C01E62295@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2010 17:55:10.0279 (UTC) FILETIME=[93EDA570:01CB01B3] Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:55:25 -0000 You mean, the 2nd WG LC? Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 1:15 PM > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > Cc: Watson, Mark; fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 >=20 > We need to take it to WG Last Call first. I'll send a dedicated email > to start the feedback thread. >=20 > Greg >=20 > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > The latest config-signaling draft has incorporated all the > outstanding comments as well. Should that be moved along as well? > > > > > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] > On > >> Behalf Of Greg Shepherd > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 12:40 PM > >> To: Watson, Mark > >> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG Last-call: = draft-ietf-fecframe-framework- > 07 > >> > >> Thanks! I'll finish up the Shepherd doc today and move it along. > >> > >> Greg > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Watson, Mark > >> wrote: > >> > Greg, All, > >> > I have submitted a new version -08, which addresses the Last Call > >> comments > >> > from Vincent and which uses the latest copyright boilerplate. > >> > The draft is at:=A0http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-fecframe- > >> framework-08.txt > >> > and the diffs from the -07 at=A0http://bit.ly/apYW5x. > >> > Aside from the editorial changes suggested by Vincent there are a > >> couple of > >> > improvements to the Security section. > >> > ...Mark > >> > > >> > > >> > On May 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > >> > > >> > Thanks for jumping in here! Okay, I think we have enough feedback > now > >> > to proceed. I'll post the shepherding doc this week. > >> > > >> > Greg > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Thomas Stockhammer > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Mark, Greg, all > >> > > >> > I support this version to move forward ... > >> > > >> > Thomas > >> > > >> > On May 25, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Watson, Mark wrote: > >> > > >> > Well, in case it's not obvious - though I guess it is - I agree > that > >> this > >> > should go forward. > >> > > >> > ...Mark > >> > > >> > On May 18, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > >> > > >> > Thanks Vincent! > >> > > >> > Okay, that's two respondents. I can't move this forward without a > few > >> > > >> > more of you responding. Please read and send your notes and/or > >> > > >> > approval to the list so we can move this to Pub Req ASAP! > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > Greg > >> > > >> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Vincent Roca > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Mark, all, > >> > > >> > > >> > Since I already provided extensive comments on the previous > version, > >> > > >> > I only gave a quick look to version 07. > >> > > >> > I'm happy with the new definitions (section 2) which are IMHO of > >> utmost > >> > > >> > importance to harmonize the vocabulary used in all the FECFRAME = I- > Ds > >> > > >> > and to clarify the architectural concepts. > >> > > >> > Therefore I support this version. > >> > > >> > > >> > ** A few easy to fix typos for draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07: > >> > > >> > * in section 2 (Definitions): > >> > > >> > - in definition of "Application protocol", the sentence mentions > >> > > >> > "protocols" with a final "s", but only provides a single example. > >> > > >> > Using singular is probably sufficient, otherwise use > "protocol(s)". > >> > > >> > - in definition of "FEC Scheme", I suggest (parenthesis > >> misplacement): > >> > > >> > "(or in the context of RMT, with the RMT FEC Building Block)." > >> > > >> > - the 'Encoding symbol' definition appears twice (in the > >> > > >> > "source symbol" definition the 1st time). > >> > > >> > - there's an orphan "s" in 'Source Block' definition. BTW, the > >> > > >> > notion of source block is already defined above. I'd remove it > >> > > >> > from the general subsection to keep it in the RFC5052 specific > >> > > >> > part. > >> > > >> > > >> > ** a few additional comments for section 10 (security > considerations) > >> > > >> > - Nothing is said about the possibility of forging the FEC Scheme > >> > > >> > Specific Information, another way of launching a DoS. > >> > > >> > - This section refers to "source transport payloads", which is no > >> > > >> > longer one of the official terms defined in section 2. > >> > > >> > - If integrity protection is required, I don't think it makes > >> > > >> > sense to apply it within the "Source Protocol" (application). > >> > > >> > As you explain, integrity MUST be verified by the receiver ASAP, > >> > > >> > before launching FEC decoding. Even if the FECFRAME instance is > >> > > >> > able to check the integrity of source symbols before launching > >> > > >> > decoding, it will not cover the explicit Source FEC Payload ID > >> > > >> > (if used) which is a big issue. > >> > > >> > To summarize: if integrity is a MUST, this MUST be done in lower > >> > > >> > layers, within the =A0transport or IPsec (or similar) layers. > >> > > >> > - this section could be improved (it's a little bit light IMHO) > >> > > >> > but we can also wait for the secdir review. > >> > > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > =A0Vincent > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > > >> > Fecframe mailing list > >> > > >> > Fecframe@ietf.org > >> > > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > > >> > Fecframe mailing list > >> > > >> > Fecframe@ietf.org > >> > > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > > >> > Fecframe mailing list > >> > > >> > Fecframe@ietf.org > >> > > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > >> > > >> > --- > >> > > >> > Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 > 89 > >> 978980 > >> > 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com > >> > > >> > Nomor Research GmbH =A0- =A0Sitz der Gesellschaft: M=FCnchen - > >> Registergericht: > >> > M=FCnchen, HRB 165856 - Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - > Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer: > >> Dr. > >> > Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Fecframe mailing list > >> Fecframe@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > From gjshep@gmail.com Thu Jun 3 19:27:58 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354FB3A6898; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:27:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.696 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.304, BAYES_50=0.001, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, GB_I_LETTER=-2] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kUNIUbbKmHxe; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA4D3A6886; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn42 with SMTP id 42so579864iwn.31 for ; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:27:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nCCHZUQ0Us8Kc0rmpP5LpyB5U5MgtaS3RBtbbALiAdg=; b=iUFCMM4OxmdgFKNn1CMIwALdVwsfTIenSaV306j1DYXVyEzl6iK/xdn5rK/b9GsSES WhCwSGVc1es4nPyk4dzB/vDIEIlBxJUKr9K7qAyQWBCQVGqmo8vjVwTUn4Y1JjB2W0rq de/3s1byFGX1LGi2cA2CBKnwINX/TZc5QWeYg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=SLFMXH5yDhZ1kaS9ap4Md8kJA1GwufdxfwNmOgAr7bv24/96qMVUy9SfldY5X4P979 WuzeJBt7ZV4KW5F/l6aNczASkqt/0gH0gty+D1rEjOHH5bcPx+jfp3toq09pQO+NbmAV uo7GfrDcE/DKNV4e/btvoJPaE3gpjU6eR+mSc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.82.74 with SMTP id a10mr222877ibl.183.1275618460372; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.145.77 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:27:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100603195140.70B7D3A68E6@core3.amsl.com> References: <20100603195140.70B7D3A68E6@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:27:40 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: fecframe@ietf.org, mboned@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Fecframe] Fwd: IETF 78 - Meeting and Sponsorship Information X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 02:27:58 -0000 Forwarded as requested. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: IETF Secretariat Date: Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:51 PM Subject: IETF 78 - Meeting and Sponsorship Information To: Working Group Chairs Working Group Chairs, Can you please forward this message to your individual working group emails lists. =A0We want to ensure that as many people as possible are awar= e of the sponsorship opportunities available at IETF meetings. Thank you. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 78th IETF Meeting Maastricht, Netherlands July 25-30, 2010 1. Sponsorship Opportunities 2. Registration Types 3. Visas and Letters of Invitation 4. Accommodations & Breakfast Information 5. IETF 79 (Beijing) Visa Information 1) Sponsorship Opportunities There are still sponsorship opportunities and benefits for high profile company/organizational exposure at the upcoming IETF meeting in Maastricht, Netherlands from July 25-30, 2010. =A0All sponsorship fees go directly to fund the operations of the IETF. =A0See the options at: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/78/index.html =93Sponsorship Opportunities=94 under =93General=94. =A0Each of the sponsorship options provide extended an= d repeat exposure at this weeklong meeting. Please contact Drew Dvorshak, dvorshak@isoc.org, with any questions and/or to reserve your organization=92s spot. =A0Thanks in advance for supporting the critical work of the IETF! 2) Register online at: =A0http://www.ietf.org/meetings/78/ 3) Letters of Invitation and Visas Letters of Invitation After you complete the meeting registration process, you will be given the option to request a letter of invitation. You can request the Letter of Invitation as soon as you finish registration, or at a later time by following the link provided in the confirmation email. Visas Please check the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs site (http://www.minbuza.nl/en/Services/Consular_Services/Visa) for list of countries with visa exemptions. We recommend you give yourself at least one month to complete the visa process. 4) Accommodations & Breakfast Information http://www.ietf.org/meeting/78/hotel.html 5) If you want to start planning for your trip to IETF 79 in Beijing, we have visa information online here: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/79/visa.html Only 52 days until IETF 78! From gjshep@gmail.com Mon Jun 7 10:21:17 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6EB3A6EA4 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:21:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Zv+fuUVrJgI for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CDA28C11C for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn42 with SMTP id 42so3525077iwn.31 for ; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:49:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:reply-to:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=NMDis04LTcAazQwY5PVxJ9Qus1v0MNYakHtZwO3LrHE=; b=f9/REclvYR5mgNBFAQXM9/KKQ2FHX/llfbEXGu4HZLBARcZfEr0If7iDPYCs+mu1kb ADMwRcoH2cj0TQCJiz9p2p4maab0dKTjNgK6JSP5qRJK+2oBlWwCqnKMOgLqQTscCeME 9qAXDm0hT+jmeDIs7LI59DPtHd8HnkZC5V68o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=xjVTrjHPouN7egGjnKAZ03H6hd/27ZfU7LlY6NF+DPSZtw4xDYXX95AFSRrepu+H3u /heUpY9T47ycVOp7MbDnYRnO88Irn+CLq8PYJdIuimMi09FHRiB3lwNswgwOwfcvhBFL cY45q84eM/Z7VChmMht2ACvavqbX1U8QJGFNE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.173.145 with SMTP id p17mr9589545ibz.32.1275920062063; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.145.77 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:14:21 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: fecframe@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:21:17 -0000 PLEASE read and comment. Rajiv has incorporated the changes as per the list discussion some time ago. However at the last WG meeting there were a couple questions that came up but without Rajiv present we chose to address them on the list. Since posting the minutes no discussion of the document took place. According to the minutes: In Rajiv's slides, the question is about the selection of the announcement intervals. And should that draft be informational or standards track? Sorry, but that's all that was recorded in the minutes. If this doesn't spark discussion I'll try to transcribe the relevant portion of the audio recording. Either way we need to move along. The WG is actually very close to having all our documents moved to Pub Req!! Post comments, questions, and/or votes of support to the list by the end of next week - June 18, 2010. Thanks, Greg From gjshep@gmail.com Thu Jun 10 13:28:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DA03A659A for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HTFZuGmUwOha for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4303A6359 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwj16 with SMTP id 16so279350gwj.31 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:28:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=8Q2oqYXoLkwyO64cQ97dMtJBP9XynoytAIV/CIV8iic=; b=InZr71i9KZSdnrDD2SvCm0A9cphyCQkQbMhBgS4vf8tnVJrVWdMHiWtew+MZUkycja VaDRMvQnzGJA/GDdEr08wxSeRnSjhb7BupyNdy8DbbYKxzjE87seLrCcZlV0kxzkgoyI 4nzmaYVmP1xiqmnWl70SiIZ5k7Rw3KMugSnpc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; b=Av8hjqhvJp+Ew5MQTZLHBY9uZkBpFZ5qUcu71OxO/cHuUUZ8Mzewp6sMl8CdmEKSvR 7kOLuMGzpVp9CiFL8NGV4FMV4G3JpMRdO1J/eUV5urtJFAU4ABiFU9m4wv84zrCNkZlF 9+gIeLU+lkDcR1DbCM/B7ONwZW7IAnjV9xhf4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.91.19.34 with SMTP id w34mr1513413agi.179.1276201731293; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.155.1 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:28:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:28:51 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: fecframe@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:28:53 -0000 Please read and provide your feedback. Nobody has responded at all to the WGLC and we certainly cannot proceed without cooperation from the WG. Thanks, Greg On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > PLEASE read and comment. Rajiv has incorporated the changes as per the > list discussion some time ago. However at the last WG meeting there > were a couple questions that came up but without Rajiv present we > chose to address them on the list. Since posting the minutes no > discussion of the document took place. According to the minutes: > > > In Rajiv's slides, the question is about the selection of the > announcement intervals. And should that draft be informational or > standards track? > > > Sorry, but that's all that was recorded in the minutes. If this > doesn't spark discussion I'll try to transcribe the relevant portion > of the audio recording. > > Either way we need to move along. The WG is actually very close to > having all our documents moved to Pub Req!! > > Post comments, questions, and/or votes of support to the list by the > end of next week - June 18, 2010. > > Thanks, > Greg > From abegen@cisco.com Thu Jun 10 13:34:17 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38373A69AA for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.02 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.279, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BrS4fH5Lpgr9 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387E23A67EC for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAI7pEEyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACeaXGkApoShRgEg0s X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,400,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="142644746" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Jun 2010 20:34:13 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5AKYD7V000041; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:34:13 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:34:13 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:33:19 -0700 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540C53704E@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt thread-index: AcsI25C1dIaTHmu9TLyYhcMJz3xOUwAAHkRw References: From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jun 2010 20:34:13.0132 (UTC) FILETIME=[49A134C0:01CB08DC] Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:34:17 -0000 My comments from the first wglc have been addressed. So I am fine with = the document. I will let others decide on the status of the draft = (informational or not). -acbegen > -----Original Message----- > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Greg Shepherd > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:29 PM > To: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG LC = draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt >=20 > Please read and provide your feedback. Nobody has responded at all to > the WGLC and we certainly cannot proceed without cooperation from the > WG. >=20 > Thanks, > Greg >=20 > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Greg Shepherd = wrote: > > PLEASE read and comment. Rajiv has incorporated the changes as per = the > > list discussion some time ago. However at the last WG meeting there > > were a couple questions that came up but without Rajiv present we > > chose to address them on the list. Since posting the minutes no > > discussion of the document took place. According to the minutes: > > > > > > In Rajiv's slides, the question is about the selection of the > > announcement intervals. And should that draft be informational or > > standards track? > > > > > > Sorry, but that's all that was recorded in the minutes. If this > > doesn't spark discussion I'll try to transcribe the relevant portion > > of the audio recording. > > > > Either way we need to move along. The WG is actually very close to > > having all our documents moved to Pub Req!! > > > > Post comments, questions, and/or votes of support to the list by the > > end of next week - June 18, 2010. > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From rajiva@cisco.com Sat Jun 12 14:33:47 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF1D3A67F2 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:33:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V-ZJoPSaV00k for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C809A3A6405 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAGOaE0ytJV2b/2dsb2JhbACfAnGkKJkchRoEg00 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,409,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="121067673" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jun 2010 21:33:48 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5CLXmJN027450; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:33:48 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:33:48 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:33:47 -0500 Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C020525E9@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt Thread-Index: AcsI248LRqc+V7ZPTZuR7aU5Eh0rngAADxzQ References: From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2010 21:33:48.0209 (UTC) FILETIME=[F15E2A10:01CB0A76] Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:33:47 -0000 Hi Greg, Thanks for the reminder. Wrt two outstanding questions, we need WG guidance:=20 1) Announcement interval - Simpler method (1-200 sec), or Complex method, or both. The last is what is included in section 4.1.1. 2) Standard vs. Informational - If the IANA considerations didn't exist, then the draft could have been "informational". It is now suited for the "Standards track". Thanks to Ali B. for pointing it out. =09 Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Greg Shepherd > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:29 PM > To: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling- > 02.txt >=20 > Please read and provide your feedback. Nobody has responded at all to > the WGLC and we certainly cannot proceed without cooperation from the > WG. >=20 > Thanks, > Greg >=20 > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > PLEASE read and comment. Rajiv has incorporated the changes as per > the > > list discussion some time ago. However at the last WG meeting there > > were a couple questions that came up but without Rajiv present we > > chose to address them on the list. Since posting the minutes no > > discussion of the document took place. According to the minutes: > > > > > > In Rajiv's slides, the question is about the selection of the > > announcement intervals. And should that draft be informational or > > standards track? > > > > > > Sorry, but that's all that was recorded in the minutes. If this > > doesn't spark discussion I'll try to transcribe the relevant portion > > of the audio recording. > > > > Either way we need to move along. The WG is actually very close to > > having all our documents moved to Pub Req!! > > > > Post comments, questions, and/or votes of support to the list by the > > end of next week - June 18, 2010. > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr Mon Jun 21 08:43:51 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871983A694C for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:43:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.835 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NY-FevFW0-2f for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134E43A68B3 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:43:49 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,453,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="65037402" Received: from ornon.inrialpes.fr (HELO [194.199.24.115]) ([194.199.24.115]) by mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA; 21 Jun 2010 17:43:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4C1F88BA.2000300@inrialpes.fr> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:43:54 +0200 From: Vincent Roca Organization: INRIA User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 ThunderBrowse/3.2.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" References: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C020525E9@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C020525E9@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:43:51 -0000 Hello everybody, (I'm a little bit late, sorry for that!) Otherwise I don't have major comments, just a few suggested clarifications/typos. Once corrected, I'll be fine with this document too. Regards, Vincent ** Section 2: Current description of "Media Sender" suggests there's a single node ("producing *the* original..."). I don't think it's mandated. You can probably clarify this at the end of section 3 where you're saying that Media Sender and FEC Sender are not necessarily the same device. ** Section 2: You should probably refer explicitly to RFC2119 (currently it's only listed in Normative References). ** Section 3, p.4: The following list does not follow the same order as in the FECFRAME framework I-D, section 6.5: " 1. Identification of Source Flow(s) 2. Identification of the repair flow(s)" => please, swap the order to avoid confusion. Also, please add "Explicit" to "Source FEC Payload ID" to be in line with the framework I-D. ** Section 3, typo: "Failure to receive the complete information, the signaling..." => "In case of failure to..." ** Section 3, typo: 'Media Source/Sender' => 'Media Sender' in order to comply with section 2. ** Section 3.1, typo: "to describe e.g. encode all of the configuration information..." => "to describe all of..." ** Section 4, typo: "FEC_Reciver11" => "FEC_Receiver11" ** Section 4.1.1, typo: " on the router doesn't time out." => "on the router times out." ** Section 4.1.1, last paragraph: I suggest to add a carriage return before: "If the sender needs to modify the announced FEC Framework Configuration Information" in order to highlight this feature and the associated requirement. I also suggest to add "also" in: "The sender MUST also send the SAP deletion message..." ** Section 4.2.2, typo: "Instnace" => "Instance" ** Section 5, "security requirements": I gave a quick look at SAP security section. It is not said that the sender should use the provided security mechanism to check integrity and authenticate the source. It's now unavoidable, so I suggest to add SHOULD or RECOMMENDED for the integrity/auth services (but not encryption of course). From tme@americafree.tv Mon Jun 21 09:35:22 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72AA28C0D7 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:35:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.206 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.467, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ELQu5-JqkZHm for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.americafree.tv (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C3A3A6A8B for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by mail.americafree.tv (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8D67A311B7 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <87B7827E-4DCB-4B78-B87B-F8C08323A738@americafree.tv> From: Marshall Eubanks To: fecframe@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-330682924 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:35:09 -0400 References: <8D4C1009-EE6B-4B5C-9934-79FC025E1A14@itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Subject: [Fecframe] Fwd: [Rmt] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-02 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:35:23 -0000 --Apple-Mail-4-330682924 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thought people might be interested in this. Regards Marshall Begin forwarded message: > From: Brian Adamson > Date: June 21, 2010 12:24:54 PM EDT > To: rmt@ietf.org > Subject: [Rmt] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-02 > > Please be advised that the revised RaptorQ FEC Scheme specification: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-02.txt > > > is now officially in WG Last Call that will expire July 7, 2010. > > Please address any comments to the document authors and this mailing > list. > > Thank you, > the WG chairs. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rmt mailing list > Rmt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt --Apple-Mail-4-330682924 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thought people might be = interested in = this.

Regards
Marshall

Begin forwarded message:

From: = Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil><= /font>
Date: June 21, 2010 12:24:54 PM = EDT
Subject: = [Rmt] WG Last Call: = draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-02

Please be advised that the revised RaptorQ FEC = Scheme specification:


<= /div>

is now officially in WG Last Call that will expire July 7, = 2010.

Please address any comments to the document authors and = this mailing list.

Thank you,
the WG = chairs.



=
_______________________________________________
R= mt mailing list
Rmt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mail= man/listinfo/rmt

= --Apple-Mail-4-330682924-- From tme@americafree.tv Mon Jun 21 15:05:19 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B554A3A67B8 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:05:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.477, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w00MbzZ98t01 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.americafree.tv (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DBB3A6A9D for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by mail.americafree.tv (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1817A43B40 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:05:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <408FD382-8B82-4306-8AE2-40AD2785544E@americafree.tv> From: Marshall Eubanks To: fecframe@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-350496551 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:05:23 -0400 References: <0BBCD7A8-BD1B-4F55-91A0-0117B111FE80@itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Subject: [Fecframe] Fwd: [Rmt] CANCELED: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-02 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:05:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail-5-350496551 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, maybe I spoke too soon... Begin forwarded message: > From: Brian Adamson > Date: June 21, 2010 5:59:36 PM EDT > To: rmt@ietf.org > Subject: [Rmt] CANCELED: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec- > raptorq-02 > > The WG last call on the RaptorQ document is postponed. It has been > brought to my attention that the authors have some revisions to make > and will be releasing an -03 draft before we should issue a last > call for this document. > > best regards, > > Brian Adamson > adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Brian Adamson >> Date: June 21, 2010 12:24:54 PM EDT >> To: rmt@ietf.org >> Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-02 >> >> Please be advised that the revised RaptorQ FEC Scheme specification: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-02.txt >> >> >> is now officially in WG Last Call that will expire July 7, 2010. >> >> Please address any comments to the document authors and this >> mailing list. >> >> Thank you, >> the WG chairs. >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rmt mailing list > Rmt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt --Apple-Mail-5-350496551 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, maybe I spoke too = soon...

Begin forwarded message:

From: = Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil><= /font>
Date: June 21, 2010 5:59:36 PM = EDT
Subject: = [Rmt] CANCELED: WG Last Call: = draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-02

The WG last call on the RaptorQ document is = postponed.  It has been brought to my attention that the authors = have some revisions to make and will be releasing an -03 draft before we = should issue a last call for this document.

best = regards,

Brian = Adamson


=

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brian Adamson = <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil><= br>
Date: June 21, 2010 12:24:54 PM EDT
Subject: WG Last Call: = draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-02

Please be advised that the = revised RaptorQ FEC Scheme specification:


<= /div>

is now officially in WG Last Call that will expire July 7, = 2010.

Please address any comments to the document authors and = this mailing list.

Thank you,
the WG = chairs.



=

_________________= ______________________________
Rmt mailing list
Rmt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mail= man/listinfo/rmt

= --Apple-Mail-5-350496551-- From gjshep@gmail.com Tue Jun 22 08:41:26 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A86228C13B for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:41:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.186, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JoHVfPnoqyMG for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773723A683A for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn9 with SMTP id 9so1797708iwn.31 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:41:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=e4CHmv7fO/Y9To764nh/dxJJMUFLJlwV2KgjNfOdRq4=; b=fHq4AGrXS/rp5dcvW14yVKd5h6Hx1FSvJ/b8Uq2Cl2UXYsMV6OKQ3JcfTI8XHY9dUl lwTJLHgba3GKEORVeogCd6lWiXiiEhM18TDk9uUotJC69/mVIbi93bXaevtIOcszaQGE qk1+N5FXdrVafjkB498Rnsq49B5J0o+8aaYsk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pwi0NcsvQWN240TzhZ25wM+RCMd3VgGF/mb59immjZ8Mw5IEVHf28e0Fge+dGESyUz mBmSRUqKYP+3eN/kHvPcV/MrrmX1aCvlSu3Jei8s764VzH22f51LDPKdx3+nbyDiNibe /V6v9reSQA/VbLevZoNmut4D66PG+jNExGpro= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.149.145 with SMTP id t17mr7717104ibv.25.1277221289696; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.152.72 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:41:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C1F88BA.2000300@inrialpes.fr> References: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C020525E9@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <4C1F88BA.2000300@inrialpes.fr> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:41:29 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: Vincent Roca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:41:26 -0000 Excellent comments Vincent, thanks! Okay, I think we've received solid feedback on this draft now. I know we're past the date I posted but since the feedback was slow in coming I thought it best to wait until enough people had a chance to read and respond. Rajiv, Can you respond to the feedback so that we may more along? I think the only outstanding question is whether we move this forward as PS or Informational. Even those who responded to the WGLC didn't voice an opinion about this direction. So.. *, Please respond to the list to voice whether you feel this draft should proceed as a Proposed Standard or as Informational. Thanks, Greg On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Vincent Roca w= rote: > Hello everybody, > > (I'm a little bit late, sorry for that!) > > Otherwise I don't have major comments, just a few > suggested clarifications/typos. > Once corrected, I'll be fine with this document too. > > Regards, > > =A0 Vincent > > > ** Section 2: > =A0 Current description of "Media Sender" suggests there's a > =A0 single node ("producing *the* original..."). I don't think > =A0 it's mandated. You can probably clarify this at the end of > =A0 section 3 where you're saying that Media Sender and > =A0 FEC Sender are not necessarily the same device. > > > ** Section 2: > =A0 You should probably refer explicitly to RFC2119 > =A0 (currently it's only listed in Normative References). > > > ** Section 3, p.4: The following list does not follow the same > =A0 order as in the FECFRAME framework I-D, section 6.5: > " =A0 1. Identification of Source Flow(s) > =A0 =A02. Identification of the repair flow(s)" > =A0 =3D> please, swap the order to avoid confusion. > > =A0 Also, please add "Explicit" to "Source FEC Payload ID" > =A0 to be in line with the framework I-D. > > > ** Section 3, typo: > =A0 "Failure to receive the complete information, the signaling..." > =A0 =3D> > =A0 "In case of failure to..." > > > ** Section 3, typo: > =A0 'Media Source/Sender' =3D> 'Media Sender' > =A0 in order to comply with section 2. > > > ** Section 3.1, typo: > =A0 "to describe e.g. encode all of the configuration information..." > =A0 =3D> "to describe all of..." > > > ** Section 4, typo: "FEC_Reciver11" =3D> "FEC_Receiver11" > > > ** Section 4.1.1, typo: > " on the router doesn't time out." =3D> "on the router times out." > > > ** Section 4.1.1, last paragraph: > =A0 I suggest to add a carriage return before: > > =A0 "If the sender needs to modify the announced FEC Framework > =A0 =A0Configuration Information" > > =A0 in order to highlight this feature and the associated > =A0 requirement. I also suggest to add "also" in: > > =A0 "The sender MUST also send the SAP deletion message..." > > > ** Section 4.2.2, typo: > =A0 "Instnace" =3D> "Instance" > > > ** Section 5, "security requirements": > =A0 I gave a quick look at SAP security section. It is not > =A0 said that the sender should use the provided security > =A0 mechanism to check integrity and authenticate the source. > =A0 It's now unavoidable, so I suggest to add SHOULD or > =A0 RECOMMENDED for the integrity/auth services (but not > =A0 encryption of course). > > From ietfdbh@comcast.net Wed Jun 23 05:00:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD993A69BE for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.303 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.303 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.304, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LkQPtMG8Zkcb for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109983A69B1 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.88]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ZPjk1e0071uE5Es5DQ09Jb; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:00:09 +0000 Received: from 23FX1C1 ([67.189.235.106]) by omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ZQ091e0032JQnJT3cQ09je; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:00:09 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:58:49 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 Thread-Index: AcsSy3Dm3JHuc3MsShiRQMUQpGywzw== Subject: [Fecframe] AD Review: draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-07 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:00:02 -0000 Hi, I reviewed this document. Overall it appears to be in good shape but needs some editorial fix-ups. I am new as your Responsible AD. Let's get off on the right foot. You will find that your documents will get processed much faster if you at least spell-check them and grammar check them and idnits check them before sending them to me. I strongly recommend putting the definitions/abbreviations into alphabetical order. That would make it easier for people to find a definition if they are redaing later and want to doublecheck a definition. Doing would have also helped prevent having the duplicate definition of source block (bottom of page 6 and top of page 8). FEC Source Packet defition includes (resp. receiver) and (resp. received from); if you want to keep the parenthesized info here, at least spell out response. Personally, I think the definition would be easier to read without these parenthetical additions in the middle. use a second sentence to say "A FEC Source Packet is also the payload sent to a response receiver." Code rate - I don't find "the k/n ratio, i.e." at all necessary. The text following i.e., says it all. "k/n" is never used in the document except here. If you really think mentioning k/n is important, then add it after the rest of the text, with "This is often referred to as the k/n ratio." section 3 is also definitions; just include this paragraph in section 2. you should have run a spell-checker on the document. There are quite a few misspelled words. See http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idspell/webservice in section 4, "Since this is an interface internal" seems to be a run-on sentence; it is a bit hard to parse and might benefit from a rewrite into smaller sentecnes. Yu might try putting the example into a separate sentence after this sentence. or you could change s/explicitly, except to say that ADU/explicitly. ADU/ in 5.3, s/may eb/may be/ in 5.3, I'm not quite sure how to change "they may be buffered are delivered" should are be an or or an and? in 6.3 "the a" in 6.3 "of some kind" can proabbly be eliminated s/then in applications/in applications/ s/length 2 bytes/length of 2 bytes/ s/construction source/construction. Source/ in 6.3.1, you mention wraparound from 65535 to 0, but there is no place in the dcoument that says the range is 0 to 65535. s/Configuation/Configuration/ in 6.5 "known as the FEC repair flow(s). - that's not what you called them in the definitions section. s/as describe/as decribed/ s/Defintion/Definition/ "for this flow definition (ie.e. tuple) - please be consistent in your use of terminology. Use the terms defined in section 2. in 6.5 s/may/MAY/ in 6.6, s/"name"_production/"name" production/ s/"value"_production/"value" production/ in 7, paragraph 2, I found the comaprisons of time versus block size jarring. I am not sure hwo to best reword this. Maybe FEC i sgenerally applied to data in relatively small blocks of time, and ... over longer periods of time will likely ... s/Applicatinos which used/Applications which use/ section 8 is so concise I have no idea what it means. This is a framework. I can understand when a protocol supports specific transports, but saying a framework does seems out of place. Please expand this. s/result link-layer/result of link-layer/ in section 9, s/this section implements/section 9.1 specifies/ in section10, s/distribute and decode data/distribute and decode encrypted data/ Mark, can you get me a revised ID so I can request an IETF Last Call? Chairs, we will need an expert for the "IETF Consensus" FEC Encoding IDs. Can you send me recommendations in a separate email? Thanks, dbh From rajiva@cisco.com Wed Jun 23 20:39:48 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252653A6919 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:39:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.850, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DB7dulK-wkfi for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F543A6835 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAPdvIkytJV2Y/2dsb2JhbACfNXGnW4wMjkKCX4I8BINb X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,471,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="124841910" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2010 03:39:53 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com [72.163.62.139]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5O3drku015646; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:39:53 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:39:53 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:39:53 -0500 Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C02199C0D@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt Thread-Index: AcsSIWXYiyN+ZO4YRzaezUhrdviAFwA/FnrQ References: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C020525E9@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com><4C1F88BA.2000300@inrialpes.fr> From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: , "Vincent Roca" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2010 03:39:53.0914 (UTC) FILETIME=[E87E01A0:01CB134E] Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:39:48 -0000 Hi Vincent,=20 Thanks for your time & review. All of your comments have been = incorporated in the latest version. Hi Greg, Thanks for the follow-up. I have just submitted the new version. Wrt = your Q, this document is better suited as a PS, given the IANA = dependency.=20 Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:41 AM > To: Vincent Roca > Cc: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling- > 02.txt >=20 > Excellent comments Vincent, thanks! >=20 > Okay, I think we've received solid feedback on this draft now. I know > we're past the date I posted but since the feedback was slow in coming > I thought it best to wait until enough people had a chance to read and > respond. >=20 > Rajiv, >=20 > Can you respond to the feedback so that we may more along? I think the > only outstanding question is whether we move this forward as PS or > Informational. Even those who responded to the WGLC didn't voice an > opinion about this direction. So.. >=20 > *, >=20 > Please respond to the list to voice whether you feel this draft should > proceed as a Proposed Standard or as Informational. >=20 > Thanks, > Greg >=20 > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Vincent Roca > wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > > > (I'm a little bit late, sorry for that!) > > > > Otherwise I don't have major comments, just a few > > suggested clarifications/typos. > > Once corrected, I'll be fine with this document too. > > > > Regards, > > > > =A0 Vincent > > > > > > ** Section 2: > > =A0 Current description of "Media Sender" suggests there's a > > =A0 single node ("producing *the* original..."). I don't think > > =A0 it's mandated. You can probably clarify this at the end of > > =A0 section 3 where you're saying that Media Sender and > > =A0 FEC Sender are not necessarily the same device. > > > > > > ** Section 2: > > =A0 You should probably refer explicitly to RFC2119 > > =A0 (currently it's only listed in Normative References). > > > > > > ** Section 3, p.4: The following list does not follow the same > > =A0 order as in the FECFRAME framework I-D, section 6.5: > > " =A0 1. Identification of Source Flow(s) > > =A0 =A02. Identification of the repair flow(s)" > > =A0 =3D> please, swap the order to avoid confusion. > > > > =A0 Also, please add "Explicit" to "Source FEC Payload ID" > > =A0 to be in line with the framework I-D. > > > > > > ** Section 3, typo: > > =A0 "Failure to receive the complete information, the signaling..." > > =A0 =3D> > > =A0 "In case of failure to..." > > > > > > ** Section 3, typo: > > =A0 'Media Source/Sender' =3D> 'Media Sender' > > =A0 in order to comply with section 2. > > > > > > ** Section 3.1, typo: > > =A0 "to describe e.g. encode all of the configuration = information..." > > =A0 =3D> "to describe all of..." > > > > > > ** Section 4, typo: "FEC_Reciver11" =3D> "FEC_Receiver11" > > > > > > ** Section 4.1.1, typo: > > " on the router doesn't time out." =3D> "on the router times out." > > > > > > ** Section 4.1.1, last paragraph: > > =A0 I suggest to add a carriage return before: > > > > =A0 "If the sender needs to modify the announced FEC Framework > > =A0 =A0Configuration Information" > > > > =A0 in order to highlight this feature and the associated > > =A0 requirement. I also suggest to add "also" in: > > > > =A0 "The sender MUST also send the SAP deletion message..." > > > > > > ** Section 4.2.2, typo: > > =A0 "Instnace" =3D> "Instance" > > > > > > ** Section 5, "security requirements": > > =A0 I gave a quick look at SAP security section. It is not > > =A0 said that the sender should use the provided security > > =A0 mechanism to check integrity and authenticate the source. > > =A0 It's now unavoidable, so I suggest to add SHOULD or > > =A0 RECOMMENDED for the integrity/auth services (but not > > =A0 encryption of course). > > > > From root@core3.amsl.com Thu Jun 24 07:45:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietf.org Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id ED2FE3A6957; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100624144501.ED2FE3A6957@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] I-D Action:draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-03.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:45:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the FEC Framework Working Group of the IETF. Title : Methods to convey FEC Framework Configuration Information Author(s) : R. Asati Filename : draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-03.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2010-06-24 FEC Framework document [FECARCH] defines the FEC Framework Configuration Information necessary for the FEC framework operation. This document describes how to use existing signaling protocols to determine and dynamically communicate the Configuration information between sender(s) and receiver(s). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-06-24073243.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart--