Subject: [Fecframe] IETF 77 Minutes

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:29:05 -0700

Please let me know if you see any important bits missing from the
minutes below before I post them.

Thanks!,
Greg

Agenda bashing:
Feedback needed on the framework draft. SDP elements will be last-called
again in fecframe and mmusic WGs.

Mark presenting his slides.

Framework: Going through the major changes. Addressed comments raised in
the list. Ready for a new WGLC?
Raptor: Added the support for the new RaptorQ.
RTP Payload Format for Raptor: Addressed comments raised in the mailing
list. It will be last called in avt and fecframe. The AD Magnus suggests
Mark to look at the RTP how-to document to put some text around the
security considerations.

Orly presenting her slides.

Multi-Flow FEC: Mike Luby asked about the potential waste of header bytes
for listing all the SSRCs. But, this proposal was not favored last time
due to the complexity it introduced. Orly is going through the concerns
raised in the last meeting by Colin P. and Ali B. Mike L. gave the
example from 3GPP called the MBMS spec that proposed a similar idea of
combining multiple source flows and protecting them with a single repair
flow. Mark W. asked for more descriptive text about how to generate the
source blocks.

RS Payload Format: Going through the changes. FEC header structure and
repair-window issues. Mark W. is asking for how this relates to the
other RS draft from Vincent. Mark W. also brought up the issue of using
a generic RTP payload format for different FEC schemes. But, that idea
was not favored by the AVT folks some time ago. And the folks in the
room vaguely remembered some issues related to RTCP reporting. The WG
should probably look into this discussion again.

The chair is trying to get yeah/nah for the drafts presented to become
WG items. The voting will continue in the list.

The chair is presenting the slides from Vincent and Rajiv. In Rajiv
slides, the question is about the selection of the announcement
intervals. And should that draft be informational or standards track?

Final deck from Roux. The Chair is going thru the slides mostly in a
silent mode. Results are shown but questions are welcome on the list.

-acbegen

---

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:57:33 -0500

> intervals. And should that draft be informational or standards track?

Was there any input to both of the Q? 

Greg, thanks a lot for presenting the slides. 

Cheers,
Rajiv

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Fecframe] IETF 77 Minutes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe