From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Sat Dec 01 14:17:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyXpl-0002V1-Du; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:17:01 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyXpj-0002AE-Sb for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:17:00 -0500 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyXpi-0006KT-8v for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:16:59 -0500 Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 9053539 for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:16:57 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <6C3289C1-B264-450C-BA12-CA79ADC49311@multicasttech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org From: Marshall Eubanks Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:16:46 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e9051aca6d23a9cf6df09e1ef4738712 Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Narrative Minutes from the Design Team Meeting 2007-11-05 X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org FECFRAME Design team meeting 5 November 2007 Cisco Systems Building 12, James Brown Room San Jose, California 9:00 AM PST Attendance : Rajiv Asati Michael Bany [By Teleconference] Ali Bergen Marshall Eubanks Ulas Kozat Greg Shepherd [By Teleconference] Mark Watson -------- Rajiv : Do we have enough time to discuss the CDP Marshall : What do you mean by CDP here ? Ulas : Content Delivery Protocol Rajiv : Calling it CDP might be overloading it too much. Ali : It is more than just the signaling part. Ulas : You mention all of that in the SDP draft. Ali : SDP is one way to do it. It is not the only way. Rajiv : There is the protocol itself, the signaling protocol, and its transport protocol. SDP does not include a transport protocol. Marshall : Can the signaling protocol be abstracted from its transport protocol, like SDP ? Rajiv : I doubt that abstracting the protocol itself would be fair, in this context. I would like to come up with one instance of this signaling protocol, as a use case. Ulas : I am looking at this Figure - Figure 1 in the framework draft - I don't think that we have to deal with the IP and UDP layers. Rajiv : I agree. What we need is the vehicle that will carry around the SDP. [Mark Watson arrived] Marshall : OK, let's start with the framework draft. Mark : So, I went through our notes and went through the framework draft. I removed the stuff on SDP. I spent much of the time trying to get the references to work [laughter]. The introduction is pretty much unchanged. I added the diffserve code point to the end of the architecture review. In section 5, 5.1 in general - I generalize UDP to transport protocols. Section 6.5 is where we get into something interesting. We discussed tuples and the source UDP port. Rajiv : A lot of video encoders don't care about the source port. They just look at the destination port. Mark : Because the FEC is between RTP and UDP, you could do other things. Rajiv : The diffserve code point could be part of the tuple, but I would make it optional. Mark : Let me continue through the changes. Ali : I sent you an email about 2.a and 2.b in the definition of the packet flow. Mark : The definition 2.a tells you what the flow is, and 2.b gives you the name (number). Ali : We should make it definition or something like that. Now I understand what Mark means. Ali : The CDP has to say, this is how I definition the source packet flow. Mark : What I could say is in the case of UDP the flow is uniquely identified by a tuple [reads text for this] [Greg left the call at 10:05 AM PDT] Rajiv : We are really identifying the tuple and giving it a name - that doesn't really mean the entire flow. The tuple is the property of the flow but it doesn't mean the entire flow. Rajiv : Is this identifier carried in the data ? Mark : It is carried in the source packets, because the tuple is implicit in the source packets [i.e., the source address, port, etc.]. The data recovered in the source block is enough to recover the flow, but the ID is never included in the packets themselves. Mark : In the SDP we define the tuple for the source data and the tuple for the repair data. I feed those all in and recover more packets. Rajiv : Would there be a benefit to carrying this in the repair packets ? Mark : No, because there could be more than one source flow Rajiv : I think it would be good to clarify that. Marshall : So, if there were multiple source flows, and one repair flow for them, all of this would be described in the SDP file ? Mark : Correct. Ali : This is described by Figure 3 on page 6 of my draft. I think it is really Figure 1. Mark : Section 6.6 we still must be systematic [?]. Does it still have to be non overlapping discrete blocks ? Ali : Contiguous non overlapping discrete blocks. Ulas : Equal size Mark : Not necessarily. Marshall : What does discrete mean in this context ? Mark : That is what we decided to get rid of. We couldn't decide what it meant. Ulas : I don't think you need non-contiguous. Are we supposed to define here what is suitable for streaming. Rajiv : I don't think we have the authority to limit the protection scheme applied. Mark : We went back and forth on that in Washington [Fairfax]. One issue is congestion control. Ali : Congestion control with non-systematic flows. {In that you can violate the no more than 2 times the underlying data rate.] Mark : There is a source flow. Whatever the non-systematic case does, it knows what the source flow rate is and can limit its output. Marshall : What if you only wanted to, say, protect MPEG I frames ? Why shouldn't we allow that ? Rajiv : I think that we can't disallow that. Mark : We have three components, the framework, the scheme and the application. The framework expects the application to provide blocks. We can't define how the application blocks the data. It could be done many ways. Rajiv : I distinguish between 1 and 2 box solutions. In the one box solution, the FEC sits at the end of the application. In the two box solution, the FEC sits in a separate box receiving packets over some network. Mark : Even in the two box solution, the FEC is doing something application driven. Rajiv : In the one box solution, the FEC has no information about layer 2, layer 3, whatever. Mark : You effectively get the tuple as well. It's like the boundary between RTP and UDP. When you send packets to the socket, it has to know the tuple information as well. Marshall : Suppose you wanted to pre compute, in a one box solution, the FEC information and include that in the hinted file, so that the broadcasters doesn't have to compute anything. I can see people wanting to do that. Rajiv : In the two box solution, the FEC could be application aware or it could be not. Marshall : It could just, say, receive N packets and generate a repair packet. Rajiv : Exactly. Mark : When we talk about responsibilities, we are talking about responsibilities in terms of documents. They have to completely specify together the bits one the wire. That is quite different from how you actually do it. You could maybe do it the way described in the documents, or in some completely different way. Rajiv : One question was, does it have to be in contiguous blocks ? And the answer is no. And the second is, do they have to be non-overlapping ? Ulas : Going back to the document, I think that the discrete block captures it. When I see k packets, I think you input k equal size blocks and you do something with it. You have to clearly define what you mean with a bit stream. Mark : This is all about how you allocate functions in the documents. They don't have to be contiguous, they don't have to be non-overlapping. [discussion of stream versus block ciphers] Rajiv : Do we mean block of packets or a block of bits ? Mark : Packets Rajiv : But we don't necessarily mean IP packets Mark : Right. Rajiv : Can the packets be IP packets. Mark : The FEC scheme works above UDP Rajiv : The FEC has to operate on Layer 4 payloads, instead of packets. Marshall : I like that. Rajiv : If we could put a diagram in a figure Marshall : A flow diagram ? Rajiv : Yes. What happens at the source and what happens at the receiver. Ulas : What about Section 6.6 then ? It should be saying that the FEC scheme must be operating on payloads. You operate on a bit stream and you get out another stream. Ali : Source blocks. Mark : We have the definition of the source block in 6.2 - I can generalize that to [reads the text] Ali : I thought that we wanted to allow multiple FEC schemes on one flow. Marshall : We did. Mark : OK. We were just talking about 6.2, the structure of the source block. Ulas : Transport packets can be UDP packet or RTP packets. What do we mean ? Rajiv : We can say layer 4 Mark : But that is not so commonly used. Ulas : I think that your [?] Mark : Transport packet payload ? Rajiv : I would just say transport payload. As long as you give an example. Mark : The tuple is a means of defining the flow in terms of the data on the wire. Rajiv : So we should be using the integer value here. Mark : I think so. Marshall : How long can the FEC ID be ? Can I just embed the IP addresses and ports - the entire tuple, into the scheme ID ? Mark : The idea with this integer is that we want to give it a tool to identify flows. Rajiv : Should this be mandatory or an option ? Mark : I think that logically the FEC scheme has to provide this. But it is internal to the scheme. You have to communicate from sender to receiver. In order for the scheme to work you either have to embed the entire tuple or a mapping from the integer to the tuple. Mark : Suppose that between the framework and the scheme there are 4 flows of source data and a repair flow. The FEC scheme at the receiver has to recover the 4 flows. There has to be some agreement between the source and the receiver In the FEC mechanism there has to be some information to recover the entire flow definition. The integer is just a shorthand. The way 3GPP did this is to construct a contiguous block of bytes which is converted into symbols. In each block there is the flow id length and then the payload and then padding. You don't send the padding you just know that it is there. You just pad to the next symbol block. Whenever I receive a packet, the information that I add to the source packet tells me where it falls within this block. In DVB they do things differently as each block is 1316 bytes. The number of packets in a block is application specific. Marshall : Mark : The CDP has to be able to carry this information Rajiv : The use of the integer value is local to the receiver. Mark : Exactly. Rajiv : Since all of this information is conveyed Mark : It's there to facilitate information between the source and the receiver. [discussion of the flow id use and necessity] Rajiv : I am trying to understand the relevance in conveying this information from the source to the receiver. Mark : These are tools for these implementations to use how they want. You need to convey this information from one end to another. You need at least to have an ordering. I recover a packet. I don't get anything for free Those flow id numbers are in the source block. Rajiv : My understanding was that we do not carry the flow id in the source flow, that you don't change the source flow. Mark : We do not change the source flow. We create a source block containing flow id length udp data padding All of this is protected. If the packet is received, this can be recovered. If not, it can be recovered from the repair packets. Rajiv : When the FEC encoding is done if protects the source block. Ali : I think that this diagram needs to be included in the document. This needs to be more clear. Mark : I think that you should just put in the ordering ? Marshall : You need to tell the scheme maker that they need to restrict the size of the flow identifier Ali : I am OK with this - it makes life easier. Rajiv : The length and things like that are part of the scheme. Ali : It is supposed to be scheme specific. Mark : What we are trying to do here is to create a modular plug and play structure. When you come to implement it you don't have to worry about the other pieces. Ali : We should make life easier for the readers. Ulas : We should include more and more examples. Ali : Yes. It might be in this draft or in other drafts, but we need to let people know how to connect the pieces. Mark : I have a paragraph on this now. I wonder if we should go with your [Rajiv's] comments before lunch ? Rajiv : There are 37 comments. I don't think we will have time. [Break for lunch.] Rajiv : For Internet, we should just say public or private. Mark : Yep. Mark : Forward Error Versus Erasure ? Ali : I think that we should stick to error. Rajiv : Throughout the document we refer to error. Should we clarify the distinction between error and erasure ? For a lot of providers, streaming is something they provide to customers not the multicasts that go to the set-top box. [discussion of nomenclature of streaming] Rajiv : Page 3 section 1 - first paragraph last sentence - common versus crucial ? [vote for common] What does a CDP mean ? Action : Propose longer more specific definition of CDP. Action : Define other terms in Comment 6 Rajiv : In 6.5 we define the tuple, we include the diffserve code point Marshall : A lot of networks might strip out the diffserve code point or change it. Ulan : What is the use of the diffserve code point at the receiver ? Mark : Sometimes people use that for specific reasons not related to QOS. Ulan : People can abuse any field they want. Rajiv : Get rid of it. Ulan : Speaking of figure 1 - should the dashes really cover the transport layer and the IP layer. Mark : You need to specify the transport. Rajiv : At the same time, you need to specify application. Mark : Application is everything on top of transport. Rajiv : It needs to be better defined. Ulan : Maybe we can put one more box outside of the CDP for the FEC Scheme Rajiv : We still need to define what is the application layer. Rajiv : Comment 9 Action item : Draw figures illustrating the flows in 5.1 for source and receiver operations. Action item : please use source transport payload and repair packet payload consistently Rajiv : Which piece recovers the packet ? Mark : The FEC scheme recovers the packet... It sort of implies that the framework does it. Rajiv : That's what I was thinking. Page 6 - Section 5.1 - 5th para - what if the source packet doesn't include the FEC payload ID ? Is the Source FEC payload ID needed ? I thought about it and it is MUST. We need to convey that explicitly but I haven't been able to see where. Maybe we should drop the encoded part. Mark : We could call it the explicit source payload id ? Rajiv : That's fair. Action item : Encoded source payload id to source payload id and introduce "explicit source payload id" (Comments 18 and 31.) Rajiv : It is confusing as to whether the source payload FEC ID is mandatory or not. Comment 28 - section 6.2 Comment 29 : Need to alert the scheme creator of MTU issues with the original source IP packet Does the receiver need to know whether the source FEC payload ID is encoded in the packet in a separate field or not i.e. conveyed using existing field(s)? Mark : This is a property of the FEC scheme. It might be in a combination of fields or whatever, but if you understand the scheme you will know this. You define an FEC scheme opaque string which can pass information specific to that scheme. Rajiv : You could define TLV Mark : You could do this - but the amount of information to communicate is really small. Rajiv : The usefulness is in debugging - it is easy to figure out if it is there and how big it is. Ali : Marshall suggested in Fairfax that they provide open source code for the opaque parts. Marshall : No, I said that for fully specified schemes they would have to disclose sufficient information to determine what's in the opaque part. Rajiv : They MUST do that. Marshall : Yes, they MUST do that. [break] SDP draft new text The purpose of this document is to introduce the SDP elements that MUST be used by the CDPs using the FEC Framework that choose SDP as their session description protocol. Action Item : Some draft must define "fully specified" and "partially specified" schemes. Action Item : Ali should include section numbers for Mark's draft in his draft. Action Item : Include the generic tag in the framework draft and Expand on the meaning of a zero length length source payload fec id in section 6.5 bullet 4. Mark Watson : In the case that the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID is used, then only one FEC Scheme MUST be used for this source flow, unless the generic tag is used by all of the FEC Schemes for .. Section 4.2 On FEC grouping attribute : putting 2 or more FEC flows in the same group is a means of signaling that either one or the other or multiple flows can be used by one receiver, which flows with different group attributes should be used in an either / or fashion. The priority is used to signal the order in which flows should be used in case more than one is in an attribute group. In case priorities exist, MUST join in the order of the priorities of the subset of schemes for which it supports. If you don't specify the priority it is up to the receiver. Question : Section 4.4 : Do we want to make fec-source-flow extensible ? tag_len is an option but if you don't specify it is zero should add ABNF to this description Section 4.5 Is there an upper limit on the number of chars or digits we use here ? Do we need to partition the fec-scheme case ? Or make allow characters ? We decided for now digits only, not partitioned, first come first serve. The scheme ID is the FEC encoding ID. The text of both drafts should be searched to make it scheme ID. Where is the tuple definition ? This should be described Marshall : There are issues with adding this information to ASM multicasts with multiple sources Will there be any mention of RTP SSRCs as a means of identifying source or repair flows. We are missing source port right now. _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 07 17:01:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0lGB-0006sE-9y; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:01:27 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0lGA-0006rx-NF for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:01:26 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.185]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0lGA-00077W-DP for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:01:26 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so776246rvb for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:01:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=9FauWXchGxYqb/Q9VQC/eCau6SnEA0ZU5j+kcEuxgWQ=; b=iXmPTHdvEylBP7mozOGbUIvQTmt7NTrmwgXwCVs5mrxP3Kt1yLgZBnb3nUjOYLz1QVvCaIzDOoG0tme5lr2jzr+o9n3jWpZipjHMgKbmm6uF+hBVaDCWZeDTH1qmydVbFFRVEr2ihGLprqx5jMs7ri8lrXA+ifuoYh2aNm7o98k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=LKD658dhrgCX//KKYUSnaYtEX+zjuwcesn0im4DUIZOPxQZKbt1kGbsLy/k9sk0pUHx0FFe+0jkOEhYFZ5i1d1doWqS1CbaO+qJyXs8GUWoIp0hQz8G9lHZTc1vLTRqVqwiT4vN/zzDAud05AjY9J+yuD1qP/2QhJZKvmgvfs7s= Received: by 10.142.102.5 with SMTP id z5mr2493346wfb.1197064884110; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:01:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.157.8 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:01:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540712071401q70e5254ao6b3d8e710f34a2cb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:01:24 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps, and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall) before Philly to keep us on task. The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there other suggestions of a host location? Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a date before the year starts to fill up. Thanks, Greg _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 07 18:28:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mcK-0007Sb-OX; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:28:24 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mcJ-0007SI-EL for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:28:23 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mcI-0005wK-W4 for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:28:23 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so799044rvb for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:28:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=xfOHy5Sskaovg9MwDuAo+F5gUTNRBOj6f0r9vX01NnE=; b=bymFDkP2DhjwkHknjvSFYMlL04RxSdB9OBI8EvREUOP6q7yZ1fOTvTfXeFQ6TJdNI3JO3JtSIbY6spdyC3RR1adrFPQ9HPvZypuY4URuiPAd1J7lOKN/LJ6pr9ok3Bh1GcHM45jG6EzfGbWV27q11+klJiEnIHLbe9qWK9aFHEs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=nDb9DBajTn6ZU2vCHLzDa9xzOE3CodYTuMKPQIdDuFN78dQK7p1PommM9lSmzVLn8SHLZu+wXSm+RDxjFLdVHBFXVDWAEO2iRbELNOhANkZdqOgICEUjvEz+pT6w0f4g0Favqdb1jCgcd38bhXp0Sni4FdqDsgMYlfsR4o3YuWM= Received: by 10.142.215.5 with SMTP id n5mr713786wfg.1197070102402; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:28:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.78.15 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:28:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <241bc2150712071528md7a67f3n41122fda5dd97bdd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:28:22 -0800 From: "Ulas Kozat" To: "Greg Shepherd" Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan In-Reply-To: <38c19b540712071401q70e5254ao6b3d8e710f34a2cb@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <38c19b540712071401q70e5254ao6b3d8e710f34a2cb@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0370849925==" Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org --===============0370849925== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_16758_19126899.1197070102403" ------=_Part_16758_19126899.1197070102403 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I am generally available for the end of Jan and February. What is the deadline for CDP drafting? Rajiv if you are still interested in drafting it together, we should start planning. Ulas On Dec 7, 2007 2:01 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps, > and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall) > before Philly to keep us on task. > > The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first > week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there > other suggestions of a host location? > > Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a > date before the year starts to fill up. > > Thanks, > Greg > > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > ------=_Part_16758_19126899.1197070102403 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I am generally available for the end of Jan and February.

What is the deadline for CDP drafting? Rajiv if you are still interested in drafting it together, we should start planning.

Ulas

On Dec 7, 2007 2:01 PM, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> wrote:
I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps,
and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall)
before Philly to keep us on task.

The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first
week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there
other suggestions of a host location?

Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a
date before the year starts to fill up.

Thanks,
Greg

_______________________________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto

------=_Part_16758_19126899.1197070102403-- --===============0370849925== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto --===============0370849925==-- From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 07 19:22:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0nSr-0004cZ-C0; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:22:41 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0nSq-0004cR-8N for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:22:40 -0500 Received: from server107d.exghost.com ([69.20.5.102] helo=server107.appriver.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0nSp-00016M-NE for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:22:40 -0500 Received: by server107.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.1.13) with PIPE id 44010287; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:22:34 -0500 Received: from [72.32.49.28] (HELO FE4.exchange.rackspace.com) by server107.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.13) with ESMTP id 44010283; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:22:33 -0500 Received: from BE2.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.10]) by FE4.exchange.rackspace.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:22:37 -0600 Received: from 64.2.18.5 ([64.2.18.5]) by BE2.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.10]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.mailseat.com ([192.168.1.53]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:22:36 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:22:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan From: Mark Watson To: Ulas Kozat , Greg Shepherd Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan Thread-Index: Acg5MG4xrHVw2qUjEdydgwAX8sJN9g== In-Reply-To: <241bc2150712071528md7a67f3n41122fda5dd97bdd@mail.gmail.com> Mime-version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2007 00:22:37.0225 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F84D990:01C83930] X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Primary: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide X-ALLOW: mark@digitalfountain.com ALLOWED X-Note: Spam Tests Failed: X-Country-Path: UNITED STATES->PRIVATE->UNITED STATES->UNITED STATES X-Note-Sending-IP: 72.32.49.28 X-Note-Reverse-DNS: fe4.exchange.rackspace.com X-Note-WHTLIST: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: User Rule Hits: X-Note: Global Rule Hits: 75 76 122 X-Note: Mail Class: ALLOWEDSENDER X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 3a4bc66230659131057bb68ed51598f8 Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1766694626==" Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --===============1766694626== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3279889355_1305318" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3279889355_1305318 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Those two weeks are ok for me as well. ...Mark On 12/7/07 3:28 PM, "Ulas Kozat" wrote: > I am generally available for the end of Jan and February. > > What is the deadline for CDP drafting? Rajiv if you are still interested in > drafting it together, we should start planning. > > Ulas > > On Dec 7, 2007 2:01 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >> I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps, >> and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall) >> before Philly to keep us on task. >> >> The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first >> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there >> other suggestions of a host location? >> >> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a >> date before the year starts to fill up. >> >> Thanks, >> Greg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >> > > > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto --B_3279889355_1305318 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan Those= two weeks are ok for me as well.

...Mark


On 12/7/07 3:28 PM, "Ulas Kozat" <ulas.kozat@gmail.com> wro= te:

I am generally available for the end of Jan and Februar= y.

What is the deadline for CDP drafting? Rajiv if you are still interested in= drafting it together, we should start planning.

Ulas

On Dec 7, 2007 2:01 PM, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> wrote:
I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about th= e next steps,
and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall)
before Philly to keep us on task.

The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first
week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there
other suggestions of a host location?

Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a
date before the year starts to fill up.

Thanks,
Greg

_______________________________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto


____________________= ___________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto

 --B_3279889355_1305318-- --===============1766694626== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto --===============1766694626==-- From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 07 19:58:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0o1j-0007vr-J6; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:58:43 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0o1i-0007vY-9y for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:58:42 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0o1h-0003Q1-HQ for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:58:42 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-8.cisco.com ([171.68.10.93]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2007 16:58:41 -0800 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-8.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB80wele012489; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:58:40 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB80we87009554; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:58:40 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:58:40 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:58:39 -0800 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540627B51F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan thread-index: Acg5MG4xrHVw2qUjEdydgwAX8sJN9gABMgCA References: <241bc2150712071528md7a67f3n41122fda5dd97bdd@mail.gmail.com> From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: "Mark Watson" , "Ulas Kozat" , "Greg Shepherd" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2007 00:58:40.0733 (UTC) FILETIME=[7911F8D0:01C83935] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5896; t=1197075520; x=1197939520; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim8002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[FECFRAME-PROTO]=20Interim=20meeting=20 in=20Jan |Sender:=20; bh=mI8CV2gqxlkb5LOl0gNDfp1cAvjkCWzAjVwUg/NhC40=; b=gKAaOVe3rasNAoMvDbwS/fQsIGSxGsK+UyHWLMe0XFpF+fbW2UW4CtloNF w8Knm5FISkZCPJVBnQOXgfdt4JGvQ/KmXHpvnS0ayvkc9ZrUgQmYHuGmp4L8 v4mtlS0eyd; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim8002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ee80a2074afbfe28d15369f4e74e579d Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1839509391==" Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1839509391== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C83935.78D3F5B7" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C83935.78D3F5B7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Feb first week is OK with me. Note that the next IETF is in early March, which means the deadline is goanna be late Feb. So, the conf call should be some time in the 3rd week of Feb. =20 -acbegen ________________________________ From: Mark Watson [mailto:mark@digitalfountain.com]=20 Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:23 PM To: Ulas Kozat; Greg Shepherd Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan =09 =09 Those two weeks are ok for me as well. =09 ...Mark =09 =09 On 12/7/07 3:28 PM, "Ulas Kozat" wrote: =09 =09 I am generally available for the end of Jan and February. =09 What is the deadline for CDP drafting? Rajiv if you are still interested in drafting it together, we should start planning. =09 Ulas =09 On Dec 7, 2007 2:01 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: =09 I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps, and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall) before Philly to keep us on task. =09 The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first=20 week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there other suggestions of a host location? =09 Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a date before the year starts to fill up.=20 =09 Thanks, Greg =09 _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org =09 https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto =09 =09 =09 =09 ________________________________ _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto =09 =09 =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C83935.78D3F5B7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan
Feb first week is OK with me. Note that the = next IETF is in=20 early March, which means the deadline is goanna be late Feb. So, the = conf call=20 should be some time in the 3rd  week of Feb.
 
-acbegen

From: Mark Watson=20 [mailto:mark@digitalfountain.com]
Sent: Friday, December = 07, 2007=20 4:23 PM
To: Ulas Kozat; Greg Shepherd
Cc:=20 fecframe-proto@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] = Interim=20 meeting in Jan

Those two weeks are ok for me as=20 well.

...Mark


On 12/7/07 3:28 PM, "Ulas Kozat"=20 <ulas.kozat@gmail.com> wrote:
I am generally available for the end of = Jan and=20 February.

What is the deadline for CDP drafting? Rajiv if you = are=20 still interested in drafting it together, we should start=20 planning.

Ulas

On Dec 7, 2007 2:01 PM, Greg Shepherd=20 <gjshep@gmail.com> wrote:
I spoke with a few of you after the WG = meeting=20 about the next steps,
and using two more interim meetings (or = one=20 meeting and one concall)
before Philly to keep us on = task.

The=20 first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first =
week=20 of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are = there
other=20 suggestions of a host location?

Please let me know what = your=20 Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a
date before the year = starts to=20 fill up.=20 =

Thanks,
Greg

__________________________________________= _____
FECFRAME-PROTO=20 mailing=20 = list
FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo= /fecframe-proto


_______________________________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO=20 mailing=20 = list
FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo= /fecframe-proto

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C83935.78D3F5B7-- --===============1839509391== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto --===============1839509391==-- From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 07 23:23:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0rDt-0000bH-Og; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:23:29 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0rDs-0000bA-IE for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:23:28 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.185]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0rDs-0004Dn-59 for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:23:28 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so868330rvb for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:23:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=0NykuiC+Eyub3xcV9b2MJks+1gkUc0zboyvdRlX/+dg=; b=a7U6RYea5oU7CiMC9F38Agph8lmglNUQUuNu1PyCsL/raCjKTeBDBxjhswhP4JBicoIUSSw+id4W6LtS4yoW/u0W4MpMMnpgAVIXTjEZDqc8m6TOs7Jg1l14werlugk9UtBDtMb5vIzaYprlb945JCQaO3xylUn+aC9pWSJ/PYQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=FIz6TqwELnleQw6m0ZF02dSyTVCMGi7T2pEyOCqSIgL6OACDDbkqAg61q7kTL4oPYPOAmDjVTPcYkYQL0TkoIoEwDdG43bs1ISkXS61FcBDmlXeJpc3iEkw0DQ54sR2nqrZ6Up1geu0GVkanzzP5ZFxSkx6FuM7+VUaQ+6ZFj3E= Received: by 10.142.114.15 with SMTP id m15mr2510160wfc.1197087807433; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:23:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.157.8 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:23:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540712072023l170513a7gf6505aac18754d3a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:23:27 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Ali Begen (abegen)" Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540627B51F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <241bc2150712071528md7a67f3n41122fda5dd97bdd@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540627B51F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org On Dec 7, 2007 4:58 PM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > > Feb first week is OK with me. Note that the next IETF is in early March, > which means the deadline is goanna be late Feb. So, the conf call should be > some time in the 3rd week of Feb. > > -acbegen Ouch! That's a good point. I guess the holiday (December) is cutting out a lot of our time. Should we try to get together earlier in Jan? Greg > ________________________________ > From: Mark Watson [mailto:mark@digitalfountain.com] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:23 PM > To: Ulas Kozat; Greg Shepherd > Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > > Those two weeks are ok for me as well. > > ...Mark > > > On 12/7/07 3:28 PM, "Ulas Kozat" wrote: > > > I am generally available for the end of Jan and February. > > What is the deadline for CDP drafting? Rajiv if you are still interested in > drafting it together, we should start planning. > > Ulas > > On Dec 7, 2007 2:01 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps, > and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall) > before Philly to keep us on task. > > The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first > week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there > other suggestions of a host location? > > Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a > date before the year starts to fill up. > > Thanks, > Greg > > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > ________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Sat Dec 08 10:07:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J11H4-0007Jb-1K; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:07:26 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J11H2-0007JV-4A for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:07:24 -0500 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J11H1-0001mF-Me for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:07:24 -0500 Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2007 10:07:23 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB8F7NFV008660; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:07:23 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB8F7MZG009440; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 15:07:23 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:07:22 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:07:22 -0500 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115291@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan Thread-Index: Acg5HLsxtVjfic/7RIuAU3AFIUPneQAj02cM From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Greg Shepherd" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2007 15:07:22.0856 (UTC) FILETIME=[09054E80:01C839AC] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2891; t=1197126443; x=1197990443; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[FECFRAME-PROTO]=20Interim=20meeting=20 in=20Jan |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Greg=20Shepherd=22=20,=20; bh=h69WtbzXfTKuaZ7esprjv6e/WVSTlRHyLDh27tG3pqU=; b=M/p4vvMLXB7H2JhwX47ka87S1xpUpcqQDMY//7Tth+gNqA+zHS2QL6Z4LS L5D/rwUcw3kMl2QHEZUQcWrrtLAi7m9bxBBJzfTJx/bSazgK3eiGmkw1pWBk QYvCjeM/HQ; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a2c12dacc0736f14d6b540e805505a86 Cc: X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1368856618==" Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1368856618== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C839AC.08BAB845" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C839AC.08BAB845 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would prefer 1st week of February. I am unavailable during the last 10 = days of January (and also first 2 weeks). Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern Standard Time To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps, and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall) before Philly to keep us on task. The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there other suggestions of a host location? Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a date before the year starts to fill up. Thanks, Greg _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto ------_=_NextPart_001_01C839AC.08BAB845 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan

I would prefer 1st week of February. I am unavailable = during the last 10 days of January (and also first 2 weeks).

Cheers,
Rajiv


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com]
Sent:   Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern Standard = Time
To:     fecframe-proto@ietf.org
Subject:        [FECFRAME-PROTO] = Interim meeting in Jan

I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps,
and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall)
before Philly to keep us on task.

The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first
week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there
other suggestions of a host location?

Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a
date before the year starts to fill up.

Thanks,
Greg

_______________________________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
https://ww= w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto

------_=_NextPart_001_01C839AC.08BAB845-- --===============1368856618== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto --===============1368856618==-- From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Sat Dec 08 10:09:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J11Ia-0007id-QF; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:09:00 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J11IZ-0007iV-P4 for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:08:59 -0500 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J11IY-0006Mr-BA for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:08:59 -0500 Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2007 10:08:58 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB8F8wl7008890; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:08:58 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB8F8uZG009725; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 15:08:58 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:08:55 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:08:55 -0500 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan Thread-Index: Acg5HLsxtVjfic/7RIuAU3AFIUPneQAj4Uwf From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Greg Shepherd" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2007 15:08:55.0936 (UTC) FILETIME=[40803000:01C839AC] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2817; t=1197126538; x=1197990538; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[FECFRAME-PROTO]=20Interim=20meeting=20 in=20Jan |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Greg=20Shepherd=22=20,=20; bh=XGGejQgRtPeHYtRjOX6ojr1l3D9JWkhb1iJTFT8wa54=; b=gt6UoKkKQ9IPMcGD1eWIX/+Nbe9P3k9U44NyCZHls4ihnBuu3gYywvphM1 myLZwk1EzexJfPDhaW6vO7pi2PtlMCGAw+97O2PmTYVMto+VtHWczfQBJCjT c5E0Lnmpdv; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a2c12dacc0736f14d6b540e805505a86 Cc: X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1419831623==" Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1419831623== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C839AC.40489609" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C839AC.40489609 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next should be RTP, = NC. :) Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern Standard Time To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps, and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall) before Philly to keep us on task. The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there other suggestions of a host location? Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a date before the year starts to fill up. Thanks, Greg _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto ------_=_NextPart_001_01C839AC.40489609 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan

With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so = next should be RTP, NC. :)

Cheers,
Rajiv


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com]
Sent:   Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern Standard = Time
To:     fecframe-proto@ietf.org
Subject:        [FECFRAME-PROTO] = Interim meeting in Jan

I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps,
and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall)
before Philly to keep us on task.

The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first
week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there
other suggestions of a host location?

Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a
date before the year starts to fill up.

Thanks,
Greg

_______________________________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
https://ww= w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto

------_=_NextPart_001_01C839AC.40489609-- --===============1419831623== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto --===============1419831623==-- From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Sat Dec 08 13:11:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J148s-0003GF-NU; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:11:10 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J148s-0003GA-4a for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:11:10 -0500 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J148r-0006Hs-Nb for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:11:10 -0500 Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 9242068; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:11:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marshall Eubanks Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:11:05 -0500 To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I think that we should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418 and 3160) : 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings between IETFs. Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, however -- a group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location they're not fond of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for example. Interim meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced at least one month in advance. Location and timing need to allow fair access for all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone needs to take notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group needs to take attendance. Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) that interim meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF meeting ? As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to January 10th - February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the weekend), to January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this restriction if he wants. The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim meetings (as they did for the Design Team meetings). If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the date and location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide here for the group. I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good location... Marshall On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next should be > RTP, NC. :) > > Cheers, > Rajiv > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern Standard Time > To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps, > and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall) > before Philly to keep us on task. > > The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first > week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there > other suggestions of a host location? > > Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a > date before the year starts to fill up. > > Thanks, > Greg > > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Sat Dec 08 18:20:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J18xs-0005tv-QX; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:20:08 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J18xs-0005tq-4I for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:20:08 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.191]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J18xr-0000dG-J1 for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:20:08 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so1085337rvb for ; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:20:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=K0zY6de/mcCcCAA5SbyM9RNAVzybRTUua/1wj4kA37Q=; b=SMIAdt6SnpGXaRLE4+AGTK28vToAvRVcM1DqyGooVwqrl6eWR5EyzW5xNe8IWWi8ftqrEaBCIwKYfWgVw/nQuWACoPm5XE66xsMlTIfZ5RtV6KMh9m+ke/iqah3WJXdoP7gvKMdX0Zd4LDQ5cQxztXlcasb3/1swwSTlBJTrlmw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=K6APfu8v9RvznnRgfSEUnjyIbFhnrF8xgbLwxJxWQQ0QibzFsMbDRBnDOUs7q3+qJ7/Ze3/qCAs3n/RUaFy7hMUDF11odTcIMfBarITBslq1QYuJ1Os2w4eZx/C1dYBryCp4AVtiFwBO/T2BDj7lgSXHK7zgYUurx/RDhSHGOtk= Received: by 10.142.241.10 with SMTP id o10mr2593519wfh.1197156006748; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:20:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.179.21 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 15:20:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540712081520lf501b79v69764b7ce9977c19@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 15:20:06 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Marshall Eubanks" Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8 Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I think that we > should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418 and > 3160) : > > 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > > Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings between IETFs. > Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, however -- a > group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location they're not fond > of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for example. Interim > meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced at least one > month in advance. Location and timing need to allow fair access for > all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone needs to take > notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group needs to take > attendance. > > Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) that interim > meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF meeting ? > As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to January 10th - > February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the weekend), > to January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this > restriction if he wants. > > The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim meetings (as they > did for the Design Team meetings). > > If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the date and > location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide here for > the group. > > I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good location... If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) Greg > Marshall > > > > > On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > > With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next should be > > RTP, NC. :) > > > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern Standard Time > > To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > > I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps, > > and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall) > > before Philly to keep us on task. > > > > The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first > > week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there > > other suggestions of a host location? > > > > Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a > > date before the year starts to fill up. > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 01:34:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J49YW-0006pv-Kd; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:34:24 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J49YV-0006pq-5z for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:34:23 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J49YU-0005eU-9U for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:34:23 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2007 22:34:21 -0800 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBH6YL2R026156; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:34:21 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBH6YECD016590; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:34:21 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:34:14 -0800 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: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:32:47 -0800 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636767D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <38c19b540712081520lf501b79v69764b7ce9977c19@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FEC dependency relationships thread-index: Acg58OOGdMHLv6kdTyyHH3PGrW6q0gGgf+Vw References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712081520lf501b79v69764b7ce9977c19@mail.gmail.com> From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: "Greg Shepherd" , "Marshall Eubanks" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2007 06:34:14.0294 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7535360:01C84076] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5534; t=1197873261; x=1198737261; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20FEC=20dependency=20relationships |Sender:=20; bh=LfoFFDRB6j9UsgRdU0LVBiNSImVCWQoWgIzGl9/8a+o=; b=LKtDXKvFoMtxruz5aPnhLaZkRGaAY579rIP7GvBjrBzN4avpNt5ZnwEf9T DoxpWAd2qJhVUKn5t5c2fU0KWBBN96LUv+2gB7MaMhMniXYRtOttH+SiWr9w Wrhz3dHAeA; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6ba8aaf827dcb437101951262f69b3de Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] FEC dependency relationships X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Greg/Marshall, Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we should decide on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the bay area for the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that Stephan Wenger told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold the meeting in the bay area.=20 As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good for everybody.=20 Team, Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and Stephan, (as the design team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. Specifically, we need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing with the media dependency is suitable for us or not.=20 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependenc y-00.txt During a short meeting during the IETF, we decided that the best way to do is to come up with examples. For example, suppose that we use layered or multiple description encoded sources and have multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each layer/description. An important question: Would having the source in layered dependency require us to have the FEC streams in layered dependency as well or not? Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" in the SDP draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with additiveness. As one can imagine, there are several other scenarios with complicated relationships between the source and FEC streams. How far do we want to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? The bottomline is if we can use the above draft, we should. If not, we should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they already proposed. This is probably the most important task we need to work on before the next IETF.=20 Any comments, suggestions? Thanks, -acbegen =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > To: Marshall Eubanks > Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan >=20 > On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks=20 > wrote: > > Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I think that we=20 > > should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418 and > > 3160) : > > > > 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > > > > Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings between IETFs. > > Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings,=20 > however -- a > > group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location=20 > they're not fond > > of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for example. Interim > > meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced=20 > at least one > > month in advance. Location and timing need to allow=20 > fair access for > > all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone=20 > needs to take > > notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group=20 > needs to take > > attendance. > > > > Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) that interim=20 > > meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF=20 > meeting ? > > As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to January 10th -=20 > > February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the=20 > weekend), to=20 > > January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this=20 > restriction=20 > > if he wants. > > > > The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim meetings (as they=20 > > did for the Design Team meetings). > > > > If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the date and=20 > > location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide=20 > here for the=20 > > group. > > > > I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good=20 > location... >=20 > If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) >=20 > Greg >=20 > > Marshall > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > > > > With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next should be=20 > > > RTP, NC. :) > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rajiv > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern Standard Time > > > To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > > > > I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the=20 > next steps,=20 > > > and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and=20 > one concall)=20 > > > before Philly to keep us on task. > > > > > > The first/best week for me next year is the last week of=20 > Jan / first=20 > > > week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or=20 > are there=20 > > > other suggestions of a host location? > > > > > > Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can=20 > nail down a=20 > > > date before the year starts to fill up. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Greg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >=20 _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 08:37:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4G9q-0001Wh-TK; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:37:22 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4G9p-0001WX-2v for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:37:21 -0500 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4G9o-0007c0-ES for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:37:21 -0500 Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 9720504; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:37:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636767D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712081520lf501b79v69764b7ce9977c19@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636767D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <00453BEC-2778-41A9-9CD9-4C44872AD7FF@multicasttech.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marshall Eubanks Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:37:14 -0500 To: "Ali Begen (abegen)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9af087f15dbdd4c64ae6bbcdbc5b1d44 Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > Greg/Marshall, > > Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we should > decide on > a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the bay area for the > venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that Stephan Wenger > told > me he could join our meeting if we'd hold the meeting in the bay area. > Then let's meet in the Bay area. Marshall > As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good for everybody. > > Team, > > Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and Stephan, (as the > design > team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. Specifically, we > need > to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing with the media > dependency is > suitable for us or not. > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > dependenc > y-00.txt > > During a short meeting during the IETF, we decided that the best > way to > do is to come up with examples. For example, suppose that we use > layered > or multiple description encoded sources and have multiple layers of > FEC > streams protecting each layer/description. An important question: > Would > having the source in layered dependency require us to have the FEC > streams in layered dependency as well or not? > > Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" in the SDP > draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > additiveness. As > one can imagine, there are several other scenarios with complicated > relationships between the source and FEC streams. How far do we > want to > go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > > The bottomline is if we can use the above draft, we should. If not, we > should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they already proposed. > > This is probably the most important task we need to work on before the > next IETF. > > Any comments, suggestions? > > Thanks, > -acbegen > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM >> To: Marshall Eubanks >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan >> >> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks >> wrote: >>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I think that we >>> should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418 and >>> 3160) : >>> >>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings >>> >>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings between IETFs. >>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, >> however -- a >>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location >> they're not fond >>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for example. Interim >>> meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced >> at least one >>> month in advance. Location and timing need to allow >> fair access for >>> all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone >> needs to take >>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group >> needs to take >>> attendance. >>> >>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) that interim >>> meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF >> meeting ? >>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to January 10th - >>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the >> weekend), to >>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this >> restriction >>> if he wants. >>> >>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim meetings (as they >>> did for the Design Team meetings). >>> >>> If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the date and >>> location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide >> here for the >>> group. >>> >>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good >> location... >> >> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) >> >> Greg >> >>> Marshall >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: >>> >>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next should be >>>> RTP, NC. :) >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Rajiv >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan >>>> >>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the >> next steps, >>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and >> one concall) >>>> before Philly to keep us on task. >>>> >>>> The first/best week for me next year is the last week of >> Jan / first >>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or >> are there >>>> other suggestions of a host location? >>>> >>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can >> nail down a >>>> date before the year starts to fill up. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >> _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 12:39:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Jvw-0002U5-Kj; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:39:16 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Jvv-0002U0-Pd for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:39:15 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Jvu-00013U-Rv for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:39:15 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2007 09:39:14 -0800 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBHHdEKg000340; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:39:14 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBHHdE0i024543; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:39:14 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:39:14 -0800 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: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:37:06 -0800 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636779C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <00453BEC-2778-41A9-9CD9-4C44872AD7FF@multicasttech.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FEC dependency relationships thread-index: AchAsfpd8FkehyAfQr6ELKpzBQxI8QAIUSXA References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712081520lf501b79v69764b7ce9977c19@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636767D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <00453BEC-2778-41A9-9CD9-4C44872AD7FF@multicasttech.com> From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: "Marshall Eubanks" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2007 17:39:14.0105 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD775290:01C840D3] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6520; t=1197913154; x=1198777154; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20FEC=20dependency=20relationships |Sender:=20; bh=blCuq7/5nnR891cpTiOyh5iFLk0+lmEVzvtJTgcERf8=; b=rB/kK40QRl3tXW0Ho+mZCTQ837Q1j55YsH4Dt5526aa+FjaNDMuqOeaOP4 b9RGxR7iDjsHBFYXRHYxy9iPN5LULfRS5+wuVRDLWtUko4as0TFMU445RrYk JNbYcAeGIdcJGMppx4Zj5XWNr+630p6EQGLDTIDkxmX3oGR4Uw/90=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a8041eca2a724d631b098c15e9048ce9 Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] RE: FEC dependency relationships X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org I should also note that Stephan expressed that his attendance was subject to his availability, travel, etc. -acbegen=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships >=20 >=20 > On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: >=20 > > Greg/Marshall, > > > > Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we=20 > should decide=20 > > on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the=20 > bay area for=20 > > the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that=20 > Stephan Wenger=20 > > told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold the meeting=20 > in the bay=20 > > area. > > >=20 > Then let's meet in the Bay area. >=20 > Marshall >=20 > > As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good for everybody. > > > > Team, > > > > Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and Stephan, (as the=20 > > design > > team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. Specifically, we=20 > > need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing with the media=20 > > dependency is suitable for us or not. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > > dependenc > > y-00.txt > > > > During a short meeting during the IETF, we decided that the=20 > best way=20 > > to do is to come up with examples. For example, suppose that we use=20 > > layered or multiple description encoded sources and have multiple=20 > > layers of FEC streams protecting each layer/description. An=20 > important=20 > > question: > > Would > > having the source in layered dependency require us to have the FEC=20 > > streams in layered dependency as well or not? > > > > Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" in the SDP=20 > > draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with=20 > additiveness.=20 > > As one can imagine, there are several other scenarios with=20 > complicated=20 > > relationships between the source and FEC streams. How far=20 > do we want=20 > > to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > > > > The bottomline is if we can use the above draft, we should.=20 > If not, we=20 > > should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they=20 > already proposed. > > > > This is probably the most important task we need to work on=20 > before the=20 > > next IETF. > > > > Any comments, suggestions? > > > > Thanks, > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > >> To: Marshall Eubanks > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > >> > >> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks =20 > >> wrote: > >>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I=20 > think that we=20 > >>> should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418 and > >>> 3160) : > >>> > >>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > >>> > >>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings between IETFs. > >>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, > >> however -- a > >>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > >> they're not fond > >>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for example. Interim > >>> meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced > >> at least one > >>> month in advance. Location and timing need to allow > >> fair access for > >>> all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone > >> needs to take > >>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group > >> needs to take > >>> attendance. > >>> > >>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) that interim=20 > >>> meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF > >> meeting ? > >>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to January 10th -=20 > >>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the > >> weekend), to > >>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this > >> restriction > >>> if he wants. > >>> > >>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim=20 > meetings (as they=20 > >>> did for the Design Team meetings). > >>> > >>> If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the=20 > date and=20 > >>> location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide > >> here for the > >>> group. > >>> > >>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good > >> location... > >> > >> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > >> > >> Greg > >> > >>> Marshall > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > >>> > >>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next=20 > should be=20 > >>>> RTP, NC. :) > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Rajiv > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > >>>> > >>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the > >> next steps, > >>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and > >> one concall) > >>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > >>>> > >>>> The first/best week for me next year is the last week of > >> Jan / first > >>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or > >> are there > >>>> other suggestions of a host location? > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can > >> nail down a > >>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Greg > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >>> > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >> >=20 _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 12:43:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Jzy-0003i4-GU; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:43:26 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Jzx-0003hb-CM for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:43:25 -0500 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.234]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Jzw-0001A0-Je for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:43:25 -0500 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id n1so917819nzf.4 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:43:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=QqgMkT89t/vRJ630VMr7KLK7GOmmgAPnTxDQZVvOf08=; b=Lgxo37phXtAZqS6fWDPwYJ0vsQGhcLc++U5gv2v4NGJgewt2X2t7NPkAQbgn9aFNt8dCkj2tLFIYwVHrcFjrAkgTCJG2xVqAVGiDwZe+rKujYggfxTpBMLs1aFZLvsMrkJwXa3WzD4K8s9XWCQHa3VXtBuXuCp1gRNnDyfNBe8A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=lzPmfaaEebI1cq607HHf+cx3kiw8vBYk3J8PNQmTecrBspxOhCQhjeb2XYLwBldZQZpcwd7zttjzoSeItCOcJsg8BBVYJyyGoG5cds2NLsJ27fE9TCzOGsheY9tpwxVzBVOmMifpkzz/RmWZ//34udGL0WUyMYH3eSDRZ6s0fl0= Received: by 10.142.239.11 with SMTP id m11mr1248122wfh.183.1197913403497; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:43:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.179.21 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:43:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540712170943x4e4272f5s6a8534aa3984a836@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:43:23 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Ali Begen (abegen)" In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636779C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712081520lf501b79v69764b7ce9977c19@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636767D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <00453BEC-2778-41A9-9CD9-4C44872AD7FF@multicasttech.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636779C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 926f893f9bbbfa169f045f85f0cdb955 Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. The first two weeks look good for me G On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > I should also note that Stephan expressed that his attendance was > subject to his availability, travel, etc. > > -acbegen > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > > > > Greg/Marshall, > > > > > > Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we > > should decide > > > on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the > > bay area for > > > the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that > > Stephan Wenger > > > told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold the meeting > > in the bay > > > area. > > > > > > > Then let's meet in the Bay area. > > > > Marshall > > > > > As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good for everybody. > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and Stephan, (as the > > > design > > > team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. Specifically, we > > > need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing with the media > > > dependency is suitable for us or not. > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > > > dependenc > > > y-00.txt > > > > > > During a short meeting during the IETF, we decided that the > > best way > > > to do is to come up with examples. For example, suppose that we use > > > layered or multiple description encoded sources and have multiple > > > layers of FEC streams protecting each layer/description. An > > important > > > question: > > > Would > > > having the source in layered dependency require us to have the FEC > > > streams in layered dependency as well or not? > > > > > > Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" in the SDP > > > draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > > additiveness. > > > As one can imagine, there are several other scenarios with > > complicated > > > relationships between the source and FEC streams. How far > > do we want > > > to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > > > > > > The bottomline is if we can use the above draft, we should. > > If not, we > > > should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they > > already proposed. > > > > > > This is probably the most important task we need to work on > > before the > > > next IETF. > > > > > > Any comments, suggestions? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > > >> To: Marshall Eubanks > > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > >> > > >> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks > > >> wrote: > > >>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I > > think that we > > >>> should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418 and > > >>> 3160) : > > >>> > > >>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > > >>> > > >>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings between IETFs. > > >>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, > > >> however -- a > > >>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > > >> they're not fond > > >>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for example. Interim > > >>> meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced > > >> at least one > > >>> month in advance. Location and timing need to allow > > >> fair access for > > >>> all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone > > >> needs to take > > >>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group > > >> needs to take > > >>> attendance. > > >>> > > >>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) that interim > > >>> meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF > > >> meeting ? > > >>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to January 10th - > > >>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the > > >> weekend), to > > >>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this > > >> restriction > > >>> if he wants. > > >>> > > >>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim > > meetings (as they > > >>> did for the Design Team meetings). > > >>> > > >>> If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the > > date and > > >>> location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide > > >> here for the > > >>> group. > > >>> > > >>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good > > >> location... > > >> > > >> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > > >> > > >> Greg > > >> > > >>> Marshall > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next > > should be > > >>>> RTP, NC. :) > > >>>> > > >>>> Cheers, > > >>>> Rajiv > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern Standard Time > > >>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > >>>> > > >>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the > > >> next steps, > > >>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and > > >> one concall) > > >>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > > >>>> > > >>>> The first/best week for me next year is the last week of > > >> Jan / first > > >>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or > > >> are there > > >>>> other suggestions of a host location? > > >>>> > > >>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can > > >> nail down a > > >>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Greg > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 13:16:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4KVg-0005JA-3z; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:16:12 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4KVe-0005H6-Tr for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:16:11 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4KVd-0008Oi-Q9 for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:16:10 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-6.cisco.com ([171.68.10.81]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2007 10:16:09 -0800 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-6.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBHIG9fs003263; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:16:09 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBHIFpnQ010976; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:16:09 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:15:56 -0800 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: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:14:10 -0800 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54063677DA@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <38c19b540712170943x4e4272f5s6a8534aa3984a836@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FEC dependency relationships thread-index: AchA1FP+Aiw+AtEuRv+7f+lRRwTvsQAA/VXg References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712081520lf501b79v69764b7ce9977c19@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636767D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <00453BEC-2778-41A9-9CD9-4C44872AD7FF@multicasttech.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636779C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712170943x4e4272f5s6a8534aa3984a836@mail.gmail.com> From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: "Greg Shepherd" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2007 18:15:56.0093 (UTC) FILETIME=[DDF406D0:01C840D8] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=7962; t=1197915369; x=1198779369; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim6002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20FEC=20dependency=20relationships |Sender:=20; bh=0m7XhPz+tPa0vM00RPSAPsGDvuTYEPFDRsbaZTPPJ7s=; b=H6TqBpjOBZA+eI9HSuiT0Cs7x/rFcq23ECgsokw4qPovk96ih7znpLfX4J fWFfzKh0uUU4/kUlVYZVuwyBuxhOzUw8UyRkOKsENiNuu/NKp0oBdNAypyq5 nxehPQldoB; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-6; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim6002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ed68cc91cc637fea89623888898579ba Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] RE: FEC dependency relationships X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold the meeting in the first week, if we can, to leave some space before the IETF deadline. -acbegen=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships >=20 > Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it=20 > again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. >=20 > The first two weeks look good for me >=20 > G >=20 > On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > I should also note that Stephan expressed that his attendance was=20 > > subject to his availability, travel, etc. > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > > > > > > Greg/Marshall, > > > > > > > > Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we > > > should decide > > > > on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the > > > bay area for > > > > the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that > > > Stephan Wenger > > > > told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold the meeting > > > in the bay > > > > area. > > > > > > > > > > Then let's meet in the Bay area. > > > > > > Marshall > > > > > > > As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good for everybody. > > > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and=20 > Stephan, (as the=20 > > > > design > > > > team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues.=20 > Specifically, we=20 > > > > need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing with the media=20 > > > > dependency is suitable for us or not. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > > > > dependenc > > > > y-00.txt > > > > > > > > During a short meeting during the IETF, we decided that the > > > best way > > > > to do is to come up with examples. For example, suppose that we=20 > > > > use layered or multiple description encoded sources and have=20 > > > > multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each=20 > layer/description.=20 > > > > An > > > important > > > > question: > > > > Would > > > > having the source in layered dependency require us to=20 > have the FEC=20 > > > > streams in layered dependency as well or not? > > > > > > > > Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC"=20 > in the SDP=20 > > > > draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > > > additiveness. > > > > As one can imagine, there are several other scenarios with > > > complicated > > > > relationships between the source and FEC streams. How far > > > do we want > > > > to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > > > > > > > > The bottomline is if we can use the above draft, we should. > > > If not, we > > > > should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they > > > already proposed. > > > > > > > > This is probably the most important task we need to work on > > > before the > > > > next IETF. > > > > > > > > Any comments, suggestions? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > > > >> To: Marshall Eubanks > > > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > >> > > > >> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks=20 > > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I > > > think that we > > > >>> should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418=20 > > > >>> and > > > >>> 3160) : > > > >>> > > > >>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > > > >>> > > > >>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings=20 > between IETFs. > > > >>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, > > > >> however -- a > > > >>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > > > >> they're not fond > > > >>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for=20 > example. Interim > > > >>> meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced > > > >> at least one > > > >>> month in advance. Location and timing need to allow > > > >> fair access for > > > >>> all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone > > > >> needs to take > > > >>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group > > > >> needs to take > > > >>> attendance. > > > >>> > > > >>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere)=20 > that interim=20 > > > >>> meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF > > > >> meeting ? > > > >>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to=20 > January 10th -=20 > > > >>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the > > > >> weekend), to > > > >>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this > > > >> restriction > > > >>> if he wants. > > > >>> > > > >>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim > > > meetings (as they > > > >>> did for the Design Team meetings). > > > >>> > > > >>> If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the > > > date and > > > >>> location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide > > > >> here for the > > > >>> group. > > > >>> > > > >>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good > > > >> location... > > > >> > > > >> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > > > >> > > > >> Greg > > > >> > > > >>> Marshall > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next > > > should be > > > >>>> RTP, NC. :) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > >>>> Rajiv > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > >>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern=20 > Standard Time > > > >>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the > > > >> next steps, > > > >>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and > > > >> one concall) > > > >>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The first/best week for me next year is the last week of > > > >> Jan / first > > > >>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or > > > >> are there > > > >>>> other suggestions of a host location? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can > > > >> nail down a > > > >>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > >>>> Greg > > > >>>> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > >>>> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > >> > > > > > >=20 _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 13:24:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4KdH-0006Ad-J1; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:24:03 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4KdG-0006AL-Ht for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:24:02 -0500 Received: from el-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.162.177]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4KdF-0000XR-NJ for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:24:02 -0500 Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id o28so405077ele.25 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:24:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=bTDo+Kzlk0aEbPdYAib9fUtyqcimRVsuxRSe5dOdHMk=; b=ogwW/ApE4e2DgaJ7ukVW1KFrc479hRG0+as86krwVu2GK0eSp6FkY+xb4Kc59knGBgCYPT3ADABv/TYuwMNnoKwLt6CIwmSscKCs7m7cn83lRZYeP9uSvZwbBvzoKP8imlD8qauq5Qr00zEe5NI0c9k4BySCgVziRHFJ4prTIpc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=uvC2VO/dRWvPPNlvtDATcmwOM8Is0Ob+k3Soh2SP23fcY+ChvfMo1hCmiiCz4dX3vDCusuRqhJdPWMEzdI6x58ApdpZLQyPg/jtz9tI25+RaI57Xtva3Z87BRH6EW4ZFyB84t+ZoZBfbWM+Ew9hY3w1N0hMLLlokPIGhEi/A/wk= Received: by 10.142.232.20 with SMTP id e20mr510717wfh.198.1197915840787; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:24:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.179.21 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:24:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540712171024r5cbc5c12r459a7ff867e46fcf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:24:00 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Ali Begen (abegen)" In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54063677DA@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712081520lf501b79v69764b7ce9977c19@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636767D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <00453BEC-2778-41A9-9CD9-4C44872AD7FF@multicasttech.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636779C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712170943x4e4272f5s6a8534aa3984a836@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54063677DA@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 187ae6c2eea74946c0ab707161f6256d Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east may prefer not to travel on Sunday - both days work for me. Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down. G On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold the meeting > in the first week, if we can, to leave some space before the IETF > deadline. > > -acbegen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it > > again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. > > > > The first two weeks look good for me > > > > G > > > > On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > > I should also note that Stephan expressed that his attendance was > > > subject to his availability, travel, etc. > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > > > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > > > > > > > > Greg/Marshall, > > > > > > > > > > Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we > > > > should decide > > > > > on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the > > > > bay area for > > > > > the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that > > > > Stephan Wenger > > > > > told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold the meeting > > > > in the bay > > > > > area. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then let's meet in the Bay area. > > > > > > > > Marshall > > > > > > > > > As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good for everybody. > > > > > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > > > Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and > > Stephan, (as the > > > > > design > > > > > team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. > > Specifically, we > > > > > need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing with the media > > > > > dependency is suitable for us or not. > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > > > > > dependenc > > > > > y-00.txt > > > > > > > > > > During a short meeting during the IETF, we decided that the > > > > best way > > > > > to do is to come up with examples. For example, suppose that we > > > > > use layered or multiple description encoded sources and have > > > > > multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each > > layer/description. > > > > > An > > > > important > > > > > question: > > > > > Would > > > > > having the source in layered dependency require us to > > have the FEC > > > > > streams in layered dependency as well or not? > > > > > > > > > > Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" > > in the SDP > > > > > draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > > > > additiveness. > > > > > As one can imagine, there are several other scenarios with > > > > complicated > > > > > relationships between the source and FEC streams. How far > > > > do we want > > > > > to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > > > > > > > > > > The bottomline is if we can use the above draft, we should. > > > > If not, we > > > > > should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they > > > > already proposed. > > > > > > > > > > This is probably the most important task we need to work on > > > > before the > > > > > next IETF. > > > > > > > > > > Any comments, suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > > > > >> To: Marshall Eubanks > > > > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > > >> > > > > >> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I > > > > think that we > > > > >>> should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418 > > > > >>> and > > > > >>> 3160) : > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings > > between IETFs. > > > > >>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, > > > > >> however -- a > > > > >>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > > > > >> they're not fond > > > > >>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for > > example. Interim > > > > >>> meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced > > > > >> at least one > > > > >>> month in advance. Location and timing need to allow > > > > >> fair access for > > > > >>> all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone > > > > >> needs to take > > > > >>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group > > > > >> needs to take > > > > >>> attendance. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) > > that interim > > > > >>> meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF > > > > >> meeting ? > > > > >>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to > > January 10th - > > > > >>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the > > > > >> weekend), to > > > > >>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this > > > > >> restriction > > > > >>> if he wants. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim > > > > meetings (as they > > > > >>> did for the Design Team meetings). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the > > > > date and > > > > >>> location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide > > > > >> here for the > > > > >>> group. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good > > > > >> location... > > > > >> > > > > >> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > > > > >> > > > > >> Greg > > > > >> > > > > >>> Marshall > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next > > > > should be > > > > >>>> RTP, NC. :) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>> Rajiv > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > > >>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern > > Standard Time > > > > >>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the > > > > >> next steps, > > > > >>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and > > > > >> one concall) > > > > >>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> The first/best week for me next year is the last week of > > > > >> Jan / first > > > > >>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or > > > > >> are there > > > > >>>> other suggestions of a host location? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can > > > > >> nail down a > > > > >>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > > >>>> Greg > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 13:31:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Kkc-0001fK-GC; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:31:38 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Kka-0001cx-TE for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:31:36 -0500 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4KkY-00035F-CA for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:31:36 -0500 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d32so10457321pye.12 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:31:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=JDKAoc0sEFLLBpDKIvJoJaFCDwoujnx7j9sET5lCMQY=; b=t96MqBlrrAk5KGoHUJbpsdMD92wBp/Y+YQflPEEL7h3o8DGcT1dnh3OlxkcTDjSvGscHGjZXRXsjD7FlM7aesjyRv2Dj+0wfd6cqlx/KJOo4QQLkmqnD2PMCNNkj9URWYhFp9Rs2vx/yyabCpyCdBDjcghAvGJUb8cnZA4+RpEo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Dug11pgjEl2E2f+foMGlIDRhXBdxa3LwL2+v+ejbv1Z3uNuu9kcACPY6e8EzdM6l5IP9rW9B/K2YuBUAyXyUInGwx2jEaLwE7+ObVYHpqNkZSoB5SyWXGVVd8YdS7iianE1/ziBp83omB0BxfBcY/r7rqGos0e0uwNtyAj62Q7A= Received: by 10.35.36.13 with SMTP id o13mr8216948pyj.17.1197916293484; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:31:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.51.1 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:31:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <241bc2150712171031y68ed62a4i5d55d2146b060442@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:31:33 -0800 From: "Ulas Kozat" To: "Greg Shepherd" Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships In-Reply-To: <38c19b540712171024r5cbc5c12r459a7ff867e46fcf@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712081520lf501b79v69764b7ce9977c19@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636767D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <00453BEC-2778-41A9-9CD9-4C44872AD7FF@multicasttech.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636779C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712170943x4e4272f5s6a8534aa3984a836@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54063677DA@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712171024r5cbc5c12r459a7ff867e46fcf@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fac892abe0c719c7bb99f6e7c710cdae Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1788821634==" Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org --===============1788821634== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_10194_13505115.1197916293478" ------=_Part_10194_13505115.1197916293478 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Both Feb. 5-6 are okay with me. Ulas On Dec 17, 2007 10:24 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east may prefer not > to travel on Sunday - both days work for me. > > Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down. > > G > > On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold the meeting > > in the first week, if we can, to leave some space before the IETF > > deadline. > > > > -acbegen > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM > > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > > > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > > > Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it > > > again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. > > > > > > The first two weeks look good for me > > > > > > G > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > > > I should also note that Stephan expressed that his attendance was > > > > subject to his availability, travel, etc. > > > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > > > > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Greg/Marshall, > > > > > > > > > > > > Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we > > > > > should decide > > > > > > on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the > > > > > bay area for > > > > > > the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that > > > > > Stephan Wenger > > > > > > told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold the meeting > > > > > in the bay > > > > > > area. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then let's meet in the Bay area. > > > > > > > > > > Marshall > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good for everybody. > > > > > > > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and > > > Stephan, (as the > > > > > > design > > > > > > team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. > > > Specifically, we > > > > > > need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing with the media > > > > > > dependency is suitable for us or not. > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > > > > > > dependenc > > > > > > y-00.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > During a short meeting during the IETF, we decided that the > > > > > best way > > > > > > to do is to come up with examples. For example, suppose that we > > > > > > use layered or multiple description encoded sources and have > > > > > > multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each > > > layer/description. > > > > > > An > > > > > important > > > > > > question: > > > > > > Would > > > > > > having the source in layered dependency require us to > > > have the FEC > > > > > > streams in layered dependency as well or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" > > > in the SDP > > > > > > draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > > > > > additiveness. > > > > > > As one can imagine, there are several other scenarios with > > > > > complicated > > > > > > relationships between the source and FEC streams. How far > > > > > do we want > > > > > > to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > > > > > > > > > > > > The bottomline is if we can use the above draft, we should. > > > > > If not, we > > > > > > should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they > > > > > already proposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is probably the most important task we need to work on > > > > > before the > > > > > > next IETF. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any comments, suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > > > > > >> To: Marshall Eubanks > > > > > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I > > > > > think that we > > > > > >>> should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418 > > > > > >>> and > > > > > >>> 3160) : > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings > > > between IETFs. > > > > > >>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, > > > > > >> however -- a > > > > > >>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > > > > > >> they're not fond > > > > > >>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for > > > example. Interim > > > > > >>> meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced > > > > > >> at least one > > > > > >>> month in advance. Location and timing need to allow > > > > > >> fair access for > > > > > >>> all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone > > > > > >> needs to take > > > > > >>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group > > > > > >> needs to take > > > > > >>> attendance. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) > > > that interim > > > > > >>> meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF > > > > > >> meeting ? > > > > > >>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to > > > January 10th - > > > > > >>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the > > > > > >> weekend), to > > > > > >>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this > > > > > >> restriction > > > > > >>> if he wants. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim > > > > > meetings (as they > > > > > >>> did for the Design Team meetings). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the > > > > > date and > > > > > >>> location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide > > > > > >> here for the > > > > > >>> group. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good > > > > > >> location... > > > > > >> > > > > > >> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Greg > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Marshall > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next > > > > > should be > > > > > >>>> RTP, NC. :) > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > > > >>>> Rajiv > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > > > >>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern > > > Standard Time > > > > > >>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the > > > > > >> next steps, > > > > > >>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and > > > > > >> one concall) > > > > > >>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> The first/best week for me next year is the last week of > > > > > >> Jan / first > > > > > >>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or > > > > > >> are there > > > > > >>>> other suggestions of a host location? > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can > > > > > >> nail down a > > > > > >>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > > > >>>> Greg > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > ------=_Part_10194_13505115.1197916293478 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Both Feb. 5-6 are okay with me.

Ulas

On Dec 17, 2007 10:24 AM, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east may prefer not
to travel on Sunday - both days work for me.

Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down.

G

On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) <abegen@cisco.com> wrote:
> I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold the meeting
> in the first week, if we can, to leave some space before the IETF
> deadline.
>
> -acbegen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto: gjshep@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM
> > To: Ali Begen (abegen)
>
> > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships
> >
> > Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it
> > again in SJ - bldg 16 this time.
> >
> > The first two weeks look good for me
> >
> > G
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) <abegen@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > I should also note that Stephan expressed that his attendance was
> > > subject to his availability, travel, etc.
> > >
> > > -acbegen
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto: tme@multicasttech.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM
> > > > To: Ali Begen (abegen)
> > > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Greg/Marshall,
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we
> > > > should decide
> > > > > on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the
> > > > bay area for
> > > > > the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that
> > > > Stephan Wenger
> > > > > told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold the meeting
> > > > in the bay
> > > > > area.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then let's meet in the Bay area.
> > > >
> > > > Marshall
> > > >
> > > > > As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good for everybody.
> > > > >
> > > > > Team,
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and
> > Stephan, (as the
> > > > > design
> > > > > team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues.
> > Specifically, we
> > > > > need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing with the media
> > > > > dependency is suitable for us or not.
> > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-
> > > > > dependenc
> > > > > y-00.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > During a short meeting during the IETF, we decided that the
> > > > best way
> > > > > to do is to come up with examples. For example, suppose that we
> > > > > use layered or multiple description encoded sources and have
> > > > > multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each
> > layer/description.
> > > > > An
> > > > important
> > > > > question:
> > > > > Would
> > > > > having the source in layered dependency require us to
> > have the FEC
> > > > > streams in layered dependency as well or not?
> > > > >
> > > > > Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC"
> > in the SDP
> > > > > draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with
> > > > additiveness.
> > > > > As one can imagine, there are several other scenarios with
> > > > complicated
> > > > > relationships between the source and FEC streams. How far
> > > > do we want
> > > > > to go? How much flexibility do we want to support?
> > > > >
> > > > > The bottomline is if we can use the above draft, we should.
> > > > If not, we
> > > > > should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they
> > > > already proposed.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is probably the most important task we need to work on
> > > > before the
> > > > > next IETF.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any comments, suggestions?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > -acbegen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto: gjshep@gmail.com]
> > > > >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM
> > > > >> To: Marshall Eubanks
> > > > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks
> > <tme@multicasttech.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I
> > > > think that we
> > > > >>> should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>> 3160) :
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>     Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings
> > between IETFs.
> > > > >>>     Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings,
> > > > >> however -- a
> > > > >>>     group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location
> > > > >> they're not fond
> > > > >>>     of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for
> > example.  Interim
> > > > >>>     meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced
> > > > >> at least one
> > > > >>>     month in advance.  Location and timing need to allow
> > > > >> fair access for
> > > > >>>     all participants.  Like regular IETF meetings, someone
> > > > >> needs to take
> > > > >>>     notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group
> > > > >> needs to take
> > > > >>>     attendance.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere)
> > that interim
> > > > >>> meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF
> > > > >> meeting ?
> > > > >>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to
> > January 10th -
> > > > >>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the
> > > > >> weekend), to
> > > > >>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this
> > > > >> restriction
> > > > >>> if he wants.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim
> > > > meetings (as they
> > > > >>> did for the Design Team meetings).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the
> > > > date and
> > > > >>> location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide
> > > > >> here for the
> > > > >>> group.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good
> > > > >> location...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Greg
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Marshall
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next
> > > > should be
> > > > >>>> RTP, NC. :)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>> Rajiv
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>  -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>> From:   Greg Shepherd [mailto: gjshep@gmail.com]
> > > > >>>> Sent:   Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern
> > Standard Time
> > > > >>>> To:     fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> > > > >>>> Subject:        [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the
> > > > >> next steps,
> > > > >>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and
> > > > >> one concall)
> > > > >>>> before Philly to keep us on task.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The first/best week for me next year is the last week of
> > > > >> Jan / first
> > > > >>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or
> > > > >> are there
> > > > >>>> other suggestions of a host location?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can
> > > > >> nail down a
> > > > >>>> date before the year starts to fill up.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> Greg
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
> > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
> > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
> > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
> > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
> > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
> > > > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

_______________________________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto

------=_Part_10194_13505115.1197916293478-- --===============1788821634== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto --===============1788821634==-- From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 14:41:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4LqU-0005f3-RU; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:41:46 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4LqU-0005er-GE for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:41:46 -0500 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.238]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4LqT-0005F8-BF for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:41:46 -0500 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id n1so952820nzf.4 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:41:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=/6SkMjeIHX9rbZ2sab+3dt+ja6nmQ+YN6OgLZOIelxY=; b=uE9odP7cuKJc5cqwAnc24O9349yUHLDtt0c/Nxjc3uEQI4BCar0edEYGf/tCUeBmEHnOh3AcEAQRSY+0tO1N7HWoJtnLY3Cyae9gKGE8iSmLR0yokZgGp9CndoSL0aHjaeVdH5gdsA5EOmpGIMbOXd+Yk2dKNiZaE8VHWiHYoeQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hRXrZJi+VJG/FTGmLYID5UcF6yu4DR05Wkefn8EsYUAk2palVqMQt4cTopD/XeU1O4YlC67lzQyA/jwJFEyxvyfjULKE0PzHZhaRl6CLgvjQTE5KJahma17arlbX81rvZ7DMkISly9Y3yDDRqxUOgrZGDAETEcwKE5dF6cMjEBo= Received: by 10.114.190.6 with SMTP id n6mr2984924waf.51.1197920503440; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:41:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.133.13 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:41:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540712171141j4a951e18p789fb98cedc42877@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:41:43 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships In-Reply-To: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6049CA239@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <38c19b540712171024r5cbc5c12r459a7ff867e46fcf@mail.gmail.com> <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6049CA239@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a4cdc653ecdd96665f2aa1c1af034c9e Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org On Dec 17, 2007 11:21 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Feb 6th (Wed) works better for me. oops, you're right - 6th is Wed. So 4th and 5th don't work for you? Greg > Cheers, > Rajiv > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:24 PM > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east may prefer not > > to travel on Sunday - both days work for me. > > > > Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down. > > > > G > > > > On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > > I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold > > the meeting > > > in the first week, if we can, to leave some space before the IETF > > > deadline. > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM > > > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > > > > > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > > > > > Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it > > > > again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. > > > > > > > > The first two weeks look good for me > > > > > > > > G > > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) > > wrote: > > > > > I should also note that Stephan expressed that his > > attendance was > > > > > subject to his availability, travel, etc. > > > > > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > > > > > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > > > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg/Marshall, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we > > > > > > should decide > > > > > > > on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the > > > > > > bay area for > > > > > > > the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that > > > > > > Stephan Wenger > > > > > > > told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold the meeting > > > > > > in the bay > > > > > > > area. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then let's meet in the Bay area. > > > > > > > > > > > > Marshall > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good for everybody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and > > > > Stephan, (as the > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. > > > > Specifically, we > > > > > > > need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing > > with the media > > > > > > > dependency is suitable for us or not. > > > > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > > > > > > > dependenc > > > > > > > y-00.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During a short meeting during the IETF, we decided that the > > > > > > best way > > > > > > > to do is to come up with examples. For example, > > suppose that we > > > > > > > use layered or multiple description encoded sources and have > > > > > > > multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each > > > > layer/description. > > > > > > > An > > > > > > important > > > > > > > question: > > > > > > > Would > > > > > > > having the source in layered dependency require us to > > > > have the FEC > > > > > > > streams in layered dependency as well or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" > > > > in the SDP > > > > > > > draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > > > > > > additiveness. > > > > > > > As one can imagine, there are several other scenarios with > > > > > > complicated > > > > > > > relationships between the source and FEC streams. How far > > > > > > do we want > > > > > > > to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The bottomline is if we can use the above draft, we should. > > > > > > If not, we > > > > > > > should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they > > > > > > already proposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is probably the most important task we need to work on > > > > > > before the > > > > > > > next IETF. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any comments, suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > > > > > > >> To: Marshall Eubanks > > > > > > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I > > > > > > think that we > > > > > > >>> should, but that of course has some restrictions > > (see rfc2418 > > > > > > >>> and > > > > > > >>> 3160) : > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings > > > > between IETFs. > > > > > > >>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF > > meetings, > > > > > > >> however -- a > > > > > > >>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > > > > > > >> they're not fond > > > > > > >>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for > > > > example. Interim > > > > > > >>> meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced > > > > > > >> at least one > > > > > > >>> month in advance. Location and timing need to allow > > > > > > >> fair access for > > > > > > >>> all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone > > > > > > >> needs to take > > > > > > >>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group > > > > > > >> needs to take > > > > > > >>> attendance. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) > > > > that interim > > > > > > >>> meetings should not happen within the month > > before the IETF > > > > > > >> meeting ? > > > > > > >>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to > > > > January 10th - > > > > > > >>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the > > > > > > >> weekend), to > > > > > > >>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this > > > > > > >> restriction > > > > > > >>> if he wants. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim > > > > > > meetings (as they > > > > > > >>> did for the Design Team meetings). > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the > > > > > > date and > > > > > > >>> location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide > > > > > > >> here for the > > > > > > >>> group. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good > > > > > > >> location... > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Greg > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Marshall > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next > > > > > > should be > > > > > > >>>> RTP, NC. :) > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > > > > >>>> Rajiv > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern > > > > Standard Time > > > > > > >>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the > > > > > > >> next steps, > > > > > > >>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and > > > > > > >> one concall) > > > > > > >>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> The first/best week for me next year is the last week of > > > > > > >> Jan / first > > > > > > >>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or > > > > > > >> are there > > > > > > >>>> other suggestions of a host location? > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can > > > > > > >> nail down a > > > > > > >>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > > > > >>>> Greg > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > > > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 14:43:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4LsB-0006LA-Hz; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:43:31 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4LsA-0006Kj-4C for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:43:30 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Ls8-0006Vs-Oz for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:43:30 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2007 11:43:28 -0800 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBHJhSMq011873; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:43:28 -0800 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBHJhA4F011159; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:43:27 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:43:19 -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 Subject: RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:42:43 -0500 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6049CA267@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <38c19b540712171141j4a951e18p789fb98cedc42877@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships Thread-Index: AchA5NvIeNQQeWQmQye3jABvaozh3wAAA7eQ From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Greg Shepherd" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2007 19:43:19.0635 (UTC) FILETIME=[13590A30:01C840E5] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=11384; t=1197920608; x=1198784608; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[FECFRAME-PROTO]=20Re=3A=20FEC=20depend ency=20relationships |Sender:=20; bh=K25lLDE87/PdKiCiBHX9zfwINh+AoBbQLMVQUk+r6zc=; b=uEePxxn+PJaw/1N3wOtgY8/BDRRbe/rDQ11L/PefkFa0iGTUnIboA88m3k nzseGQV8m6k6V7IEZ1hbD7fHaMGeDseXUTKepZDlCrZ9qIY2EXjrjXxHve22 6GQsnXXpQCJpvkBuOXBARWxPUkEs4eo1ggSdQkf5sWIiNQHeDGFuM=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 3b8eea209b62bd15620865bc4fbef8cd Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org 5h should also work, but not the 4th. Cheers, Rajiv =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:42 PM > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships >=20 > On Dec 17, 2007 11:21 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)=20 > wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Feb 6th (Wed) works better for me. >=20 > oops, you're right - 6th is Wed. So 4th and 5th don't work for you? >=20 > Greg >=20 > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:24 PM > > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > > > Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > > > Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east=20 > may prefer not > > > to travel on Sunday - both days work for me. > > > > > > Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down. > > > > > > G > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen)=20 > wrote: > > > > I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold > > > the meeting > > > > in the first week, if we can, to leave some space=20 > before the IETF > > > > deadline. > > > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM > > > > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > > > > > > > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > > > > > > > Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it > > > > > again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. > > > > > > > > > > The first two weeks look good for me > > > > > > > > > > G > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) > > > wrote: > > > > > > I should also note that Stephan expressed that his > > > attendance was > > > > > > subject to his availability, travel, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > > > > > > > To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > > > > > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg/Marshall, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we > > > > > > > should decide > > > > > > > > on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the > > > > > > > bay area for > > > > > > > > the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that > > > > > > > Stephan Wenger > > > > > > > > told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold=20 > the meeting > > > > > > > in the bay > > > > > > > > area. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then let's meet in the Bay area. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marshall > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good=20 > for everybody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and > > > > > Stephan, (as the > > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. > > > > > Specifically, we > > > > > > > > need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing > > > with the media > > > > > > > > dependency is suitable for us or not. > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > > > > > > > > dependenc > > > > > > > > y-00.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During a short meeting during the IETF, we=20 > decided that the > > > > > > > best way > > > > > > > > to do is to come up with examples. For example, > > > suppose that we > > > > > > > > use layered or multiple description encoded=20 > sources and have > > > > > > > > multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each > > > > > layer/description. > > > > > > > > An > > > > > > > important > > > > > > > > question: > > > > > > > > Would > > > > > > > > having the source in layered dependency require us to > > > > > have the FEC > > > > > > > > streams in layered dependency as well or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" > > > > > in the SDP > > > > > > > > draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > > > > > > > additiveness. > > > > > > > > As one can imagine, there are several other=20 > scenarios with > > > > > > > complicated > > > > > > > > relationships between the source and FEC=20 > streams. How far > > > > > > > do we want > > > > > > > > to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The bottomline is if we can use the above=20 > draft, we should. > > > > > > > If not, we > > > > > > > > should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they > > > > > > > already proposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is probably the most important task we=20 > need to work on > > > > > > > before the > > > > > > > > next IETF. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any comments, suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > > > > > > > >> To: Marshall Eubanks > > > > > > > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > >>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I > > > > > > > think that we > > > > > > > >>> should, but that of course has some restrictions > > > (see rfc2418 > > > > > > > >>> and > > > > > > > >>> 3160) : > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings > > > > > between IETFs. > > > > > > > >>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF > > > meetings, > > > > > > > >> however -- a > > > > > > > >>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > > > > > > > >> they're not fond > > > > > > > >>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for > > > > > example. Interim > > > > > > > >>> meetings require AD approval, and need to=20 > be announced > > > > > > > >> at least one > > > > > > > >>> month in advance. Location and timing=20 > need to allow > > > > > > > >> fair access for > > > > > > > >>> all participants. Like regular IETF=20 > meetings, someone > > > > > > > >> needs to take > > > > > > > >>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org,=20 > and the group > > > > > > > >> needs to take > > > > > > > >>> attendance. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) > > > > > that interim > > > > > > > >>> meetings should not happen within the month > > > before the IETF > > > > > > > >> meeting ? > > > > > > > >>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to > > > > > January 10th - > > > > > > > >>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want=20 > meet on the > > > > > > > >> weekend), to > > > > > > > >>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can=20 > comment on this > > > > > > > >> restriction > > > > > > > >>> if he wants. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim > > > > > > > meetings (as they > > > > > > > >>> did for the Design Team meetings). > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> If we want to do an interim, I will=20 > immediately raise the > > > > > > > date and > > > > > > > >>> location issue on the main mailing list. We=20 > cannot decide > > > > > > > >> here for the > > > > > > > >>> group. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would=20 > not be a good > > > > > > > >> location... > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Greg > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> Marshall > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati=20 > (rajiva) wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and=20 > SJ, so next > > > > > > > should be > > > > > > > >>>> RTP, NC. :) > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > > > > > >>>> Rajiv > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern > > > > > Standard Time > > > > > > > >>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim=20 > meeting in Jan > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG=20 > meeting about the > > > > > > > >> next steps, > > > > > > > >>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one=20 > meeting and > > > > > > > >> one concall) > > > > > > > >>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> The first/best week for me next year is the=20 > last week of > > > > > > > >> Jan / first > > > > > > > >>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the=20 > group. :) Or > > > > > > > >> are there > > > > > > > >>>> other suggestions of a host location? > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look=20 > like so we can > > > > > > > >> nail down a > > > > > > > >>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > >>>> Greg > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > > > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > > > > > >> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > > > > > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > >=20 _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 14:52:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4M0U-0000Dt-Rn; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:52:06 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4M0T-00009f-V1 for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:52:06 -0500 Received: from server107e.exghost.com ([69.20.100.17] helo=server107.appriver.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4M0S-0005jP-V0 for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:52:05 -0500 Received: by server107.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.1.13) with PIPE id 48648597; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:51:56 -0500 Received: from [72.32.49.36] (HELO FE3.exchange.rackspace.com) by server107.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.13) with ESMTP id 48648116; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:51:30 -0500 Received: from BE2.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.10]) by FE3.exchange.rackspace.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:51:34 -0600 Received: from 67.101.97.124 ([67.101.97.124]) by BE2.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.10]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.mailseat.com ([192.168.1.5]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:51:34 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:51:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships From: Mark Watson To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" , Greg Shepherd Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships Thread-Index: AchA5NvIeNQQeWQmQye3jABvaozh3wAAA7eQAABTix8= In-Reply-To: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6049CA267@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2007 19:51:34.0504 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A500E80:01C840E6] X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Primary: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide X-ALLOW: mark@digitalfountain.com ALLOWED X-Note: Spam Tests Failed: X-Country-Path: UNITED STATES->PRIVATE->UNITED STATES->UNITED STATES X-Note-Sending-IP: 72.32.49.36 X-Note-Reverse-DNS: fe3.exchange.rackspace.com X-Note-WHTLIST: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: User Rule Hits: X-Note: Global Rule Hits: 75 76 122 X-Note: Mail Class: ALLOWEDSENDER X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: fca741f5016e6ff607eaed2fd431d10d Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Feb 5th (to 8th) is ATIS IIF, in South Carolina, so probably I could not make the 4th either due to travel time. The previous week, or the next week, would be fine. ...Mark On 12/17/07 11:42 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote: > > 5h should also work, but not the 4th. > > Cheers, > Rajiv > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:42 PM >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships >> >> On Dec 17, 2007 11:21 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) >> wrote: >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> Feb 6th (Wed) works better for me. >> >> oops, you're right - 6th is Wed. So 4th and 5th don't work for you? >> >> Greg >> >>> Cheers, >>> Rajiv >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:24 PM >>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) >>> >>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships >>>> >>>> Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east >> may prefer not >>>> to travel on Sunday - both days work for me. >>>> >>>> Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down. >>>> >>>> G >>>> >>>> On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) >> wrote: >>>>> I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold >>>> the meeting >>>>> in the first week, if we can, to leave some space >> before the IETF >>>>> deadline. >>>>> >>>>> -acbegen >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM >>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) >>>>> >>>>>> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships >>>>>> >>>>>> Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it >>>>>> again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. >>>>>> >>>>>> The first two weeks look good for me >>>>>> >>>>>> G >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I should also note that Stephan expressed that his >>>> attendance was >>>>>>> subject to his availability, travel, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -acbegen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM >>>>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) >>>>>>>> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg/Marshall, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we >>>>>>>> should decide >>>>>>>>> on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the >>>>>>>> bay area for >>>>>>>>> the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that >>>>>>>> Stephan Wenger >>>>>>>>> told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold >> the meeting >>>>>>>> in the bay >>>>>>>>> area. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then let's meet in the Bay area. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marshall >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good >> for everybody. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Team, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and >>>>>> Stephan, (as the >>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>> team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. >>>>>> Specifically, we >>>>>>>>> need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing >>>> with the media >>>>>>>>> dependency is suitable for us or not. >>>>>>>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- >>>>>>>>> dependenc >>>>>>>>> y-00.txt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> During a short meeting during the IETF, we >> decided that the >>>>>>>> best way >>>>>>>>> to do is to come up with examples. For example, >>>> suppose that we >>>>>>>>> use layered or multiple description encoded >> sources and have >>>>>>>>> multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each >>>>>> layer/description. >>>>>>>>> An >>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>> question: >>>>>>>>> Would >>>>>>>>> having the source in layered dependency require us to >>>>>> have the FEC >>>>>>>>> streams in layered dependency as well or not? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" >>>>>> in the SDP >>>>>>>>> draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with >>>>>>>> additiveness. >>>>>>>>> As one can imagine, there are several other >> scenarios with >>>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>>>> relationships between the source and FEC >> streams. How far >>>>>>>> do we want >>>>>>>>> to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The bottomline is if we can use the above >> draft, we should. >>>>>>>> If not, we >>>>>>>>> should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they >>>>>>>> already proposed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is probably the most important task we >> need to work on >>>>>>>> before the >>>>>>>>> next IETF. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any comments, suggestions? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> -acbegen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: Marshall Eubanks >>>>>>>>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I >>>>>>>> think that we >>>>>>>>>>> should, but that of course has some restrictions >>>> (see rfc2418 >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> 3160) : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings >>>>>> between IETFs. >>>>>>>>>>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF >>>> meetings, >>>>>>>>>> however -- a >>>>>>>>>>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location >>>>>>>>>> they're not fond >>>>>>>>>>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for >>>>>> example. Interim >>>>>>>>>>> meetings require AD approval, and need to >> be announced >>>>>>>>>> at least one >>>>>>>>>>> month in advance. Location and timing >> need to allow >>>>>>>>>> fair access for >>>>>>>>>>> all participants. Like regular IETF >> meetings, someone >>>>>>>>>> needs to take >>>>>>>>>>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, >> and the group >>>>>>>>>> needs to take >>>>>>>>>>> attendance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) >>>>>> that interim >>>>>>>>>>> meetings should not happen within the month >>>> before the IETF >>>>>>>>>> meeting ? >>>>>>>>>>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to >>>>>> January 10th - >>>>>>>>>>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want >> meet on the >>>>>>>>>> weekend), to >>>>>>>>>>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can >> comment on this >>>>>>>>>> restriction >>>>>>>>>>> if he wants. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim >>>>>>>> meetings (as they >>>>>>>>>>> did for the Design Team meetings). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If we want to do an interim, I will >> immediately raise the >>>>>>>> date and >>>>>>>>>>> location issue on the main mailing list. We >> cannot decide >>>>>>>>>> here for the >>>>>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would >> not be a good >>>>>>>>>> location... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Marshall >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati >> (rajiva) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and >> SJ, so next >>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>>>>>> RTP, NC. :) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>> Rajiv >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern >>>>>> Standard Time >>>>>>>>>>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim >> meeting in Jan >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG >> meeting about the >>>>>>>>>> next steps, >>>>>>>>>>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one >> meeting and >>>>>>>>>> one concall) >>>>>>>>>>>> before Philly to keep us on task. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The first/best week for me next year is the >> last week of >>>>>>>>>> Jan / first >>>>>>>>>>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the >> group. :) Or >>>>>>>>>> are there >>>>>>>>>>>> other suggestions of a host location? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look >> like so we can >>>>>>>>>> nail down a >>>>>>>>>>>> date before the year starts to fill up. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 15:35:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Mgb-0007sh-Ge; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:35:37 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Mga-0007qh-Il for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:35:36 -0500 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.181]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4MgZ-0007S8-AV for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:35:36 -0500 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k40so4549942wah.25 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:35:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=dnSXkLL6+5NnpDF4UKbnCpiOQaLrB1cvqK/I0umY3g8=; b=G62vSxygQKWcf4eFEBMKqDzEMwlbIqBGZ2f/V9GmO8gow/0VttEIRW0KcJXLhJY0oIRA5lgcgJh8qxdTk0HRx7wNhY3rMkWO8Hmf/+gE30FUB+figGd341TyK0yFrRziJKJkLCpTinrMnCg3c4cXUnSnh3BYZfu5WeeWx0b+CM0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Nj/vK+NhWmSkXXDFRf0fLO1OpHtomgz6ehhWZPKO5PMNS3Eh0eol96KlzYmHxEt6sJMNrEleTKKAjf1AQ2tF52p4W8lJaKO39VmE1nwFp3YmVK7Vwu99OP6KHH8WYq8x1S/DmJVRs3NJ3VaJBCucca3c6JpCUb/c+yiKy0xuiuo= Received: by 10.115.23.12 with SMTP id a12mr3137871waj.96.1197923729647; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.133.13 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:35:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540712171235k58d578baj3f56ff103bc721fc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:35:29 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Mark Watson" Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6049CA267@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 96e0f8497f38c15fbfc8f6f315bcdecb Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org On Dec 17, 2007 11:51 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > Feb 5th (to 8th) is ATIS IIF, in South Carolina, so probably I could not > make the 4th either due to travel time. > > The previous week, or the next week, would be fine. The next week doesn't work for Ali. The week before could work for me - mtd week. We need Mark in attendance, so how does the week of Jan28th look for everyone? G > ...Mark > > > > On 12/17/07 11:42 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote: > > > > > 5h should also work, but not the 4th. > > > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:42 PM > >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > >> > >> On Dec 17, 2007 11:21 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > >> wrote: > >>> Hi Greg, > >>> > >>> Feb 6th (Wed) works better for me. > >> > >> oops, you're right - 6th is Wed. So 4th and 5th don't work for you? > >> > >> Greg > >> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Rajiv > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:24 PM > >>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > >>> > >>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > >>>> > >>>> Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east > >> may prefer not > >>>> to travel on Sunday - both days work for me. > >>>> > >>>> Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down. > >>>> > >>>> G > >>>> > >>>> On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) > >> wrote: > >>>>> I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold > >>>> the meeting > >>>>> in the first week, if we can, to leave some space > >> before the IETF > >>>>> deadline. > >>>>> > >>>>> -acbegen > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM > >>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > >>>>> > >>>>>> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it > >>>>>> again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The first two weeks look good for me > >>>>>> > >>>>>> G > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> I should also note that Stephan expressed that his > >>>> attendance was > >>>>>>> subject to his availability, travel, etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -acbegen > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > >>>>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > >>>>>>>> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Greg/Marshall, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we > >>>>>>>> should decide > >>>>>>>>> on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the > >>>>>>>> bay area for > >>>>>>>>> the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that > >>>>>>>> Stephan Wenger > >>>>>>>>> told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold > >> the meeting > >>>>>>>> in the bay > >>>>>>>>> area. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Then let's meet in the Bay area. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Marshall > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good > >> for everybody. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Team, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and > >>>>>> Stephan, (as the > >>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>> team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. > >>>>>> Specifically, we > >>>>>>>>> need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing > >>>> with the media > >>>>>>>>> dependency is suitable for us or not. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > >>>>>>>>> dependenc > >>>>>>>>> y-00.txt > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> During a short meeting during the IETF, we > >> decided that the > >>>>>>>> best way > >>>>>>>>> to do is to come up with examples. For example, > >>>> suppose that we > >>>>>>>>> use layered or multiple description encoded > >> sources and have > >>>>>>>>> multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each > >>>>>> layer/description. > >>>>>>>>> An > >>>>>>>> important > >>>>>>>>> question: > >>>>>>>>> Would > >>>>>>>>> having the source in layered dependency require us to > >>>>>> have the FEC > >>>>>>>>> streams in layered dependency as well or not? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" > >>>>>> in the SDP > >>>>>>>>> draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > >>>>>>>> additiveness. > >>>>>>>>> As one can imagine, there are several other > >> scenarios with > >>>>>>>> complicated > >>>>>>>>> relationships between the source and FEC > >> streams. How far > >>>>>>>> do we want > >>>>>>>>> to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The bottomline is if we can use the above > >> draft, we should. > >>>>>>>> If not, we > >>>>>>>>> should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they > >>>>>>>> already proposed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This is probably the most important task we > >> need to work on > >>>>>>>> before the > >>>>>>>>> next IETF. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Any comments, suggestions? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>> -acbegen > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > >>>>>>>>>> To: Marshall Eubanks > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I > >>>>>>>> think that we > >>>>>>>>>>> should, but that of course has some restrictions > >>>> (see rfc2418 > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> 3160) : > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings > >>>>>> between IETFs. > >>>>>>>>>>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF > >>>> meetings, > >>>>>>>>>> however -- a > >>>>>>>>>>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > >>>>>>>>>> they're not fond > >>>>>>>>>>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for > >>>>>> example. Interim > >>>>>>>>>>> meetings require AD approval, and need to > >> be announced > >>>>>>>>>> at least one > >>>>>>>>>>> month in advance. Location and timing > >> need to allow > >>>>>>>>>> fair access for > >>>>>>>>>>> all participants. Like regular IETF > >> meetings, someone > >>>>>>>>>> needs to take > >>>>>>>>>>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, > >> and the group > >>>>>>>>>> needs to take > >>>>>>>>>>> attendance. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) > >>>>>> that interim > >>>>>>>>>>> meetings should not happen within the month > >>>> before the IETF > >>>>>>>>>> meeting ? > >>>>>>>>>>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to > >>>>>> January 10th - > >>>>>>>>>>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want > >> meet on the > >>>>>>>>>> weekend), to > >>>>>>>>>>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can > >> comment on this > >>>>>>>>>> restriction > >>>>>>>>>>> if he wants. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim > >>>>>>>> meetings (as they > >>>>>>>>>>> did for the Design Team meetings). > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If we want to do an interim, I will > >> immediately raise the > >>>>>>>> date and > >>>>>>>>>>> location issue on the main mailing list. We > >> cannot decide > >>>>>>>>>> here for the > >>>>>>>>>>> group. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would > >> not be a good > >>>>>>>>>> location... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Greg > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Marshall > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati > >> (rajiva) wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and > >> SJ, so next > >>>>>>>> should be > >>>>>>>>>>>> RTP, NC. :) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rajiv > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern > >>>>>> Standard Time > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim > >> meeting in Jan > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG > >> meeting about the > >>>>>>>>>> next steps, > >>>>>>>>>>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one > >> meeting and > >>>>>>>>>> one concall) > >>>>>>>>>>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The first/best week for me next year is the > >> last week of > >>>>>>>>>> Jan / first > >>>>>>>>>>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the > >> group. :) Or > >>>>>>>>>> are there > >>>>>>>>>>>> other suggestions of a host location? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look > >> like so we can > >>>>>>>>>> nail down a > >>>>>>>>>>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Greg > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 16:47:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Nob-0002Rw-Dw; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:47:57 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Noa-0002RE-It for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:47:56 -0500 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.181]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NoY-0002tv-2e for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:47:56 -0500 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d32so10775008pye.12 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:47:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=BtLC+CQtOR/KqjbdGfn/VWLMOg2akiImwBFPc2h5wuo=; b=OSHjexr3Db2sD/PZMWYZt8XfykKwwi/iSPJMMyBU/LYEdzrrQlmI6cI6T56t/UuvoNXZWWI2Nfgw/ZEfaz7egsXYHkYlY4SDQyMNHneQgPN65rOIbxcYKBwlZHf/4p60gQPn3QlbXQns8g+rvf0oX473JdUoURwz3WmABgdrrRI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=HxjXfj1oKtMI4/Hqcoj6fK0q2pTL30zWD8mTTci2KPzyw4l1yGRN0f8SgEtpL9vHXFo5TsVcZ5vJHncJCOLYM8II/TNdiqv3H0VEy4S6JCZbZhARvVIxmXIAKY6QsY0PXGq1i1H/VI/C/QJEq+D6nrnd4y2S9P5yaxCO9E7kjVU= Received: by 10.35.78.9 with SMTP id f9mr3520599pyl.39.1197928072866; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:47:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.51.1 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:47:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <241bc2150712171347i2df6c144kd1d7995782a70204@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:47:52 -0800 From: "Ulas Kozat" To: "Greg Shepherd" Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships In-Reply-To: <38c19b540712171235k58d578baj3f56ff103bc721fc@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6049CA267@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712171235k58d578baj3f56ff103bc721fc@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6a817af60e4281a101681ecb646dffff Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1155663657==" Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org --===============1155663657== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_10712_10413475.1197928072851" ------=_Part_10712_10413475.1197928072851 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline that is also fine for me... On Dec 17, 2007 12:35 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > On Dec 17, 2007 11:51 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > > Feb 5th (to 8th) is ATIS IIF, in South Carolina, so probably I could not > > make the 4th either due to travel time. > > > > The previous week, or the next week, would be fine. > > The next week doesn't work for Ali. The week before could work for me > - mtd week. > > We need Mark in attendance, so how does the week of Jan28th look for > everyone? > > G > > > ...Mark > > > > > > > > On 12/17/07 11:42 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote: > > > > > > > > 5h should also work, but not the 4th. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rajiv > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:42 PM > > >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > > >> > > >> On Dec 17, 2007 11:21 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > > >> wrote: > > >>> Hi Greg, > > >>> > > >>> Feb 6th (Wed) works better for me. > > >> > > >> oops, you're right - 6th is Wed. So 4th and 5th don't work for you? > > >> > > >> Greg > > >> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> Rajiv > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:24 PM > > >>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > >>> > > >>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > > >>>> > > >>>> Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east > > >> may prefer not > > >>>> to travel on Sunday - both days work for me. > > >>>> > > >>>> Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down. > > >>>> > > >>>> G > > >>>> > > >>>> On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) > > >> wrote: > > >>>>> I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold > > >>>> the meeting > > >>>>> in the first week, if we can, to leave some space > > >> before the IETF > > >>>>> deadline. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -acbegen > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM > > >>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it > > >>>>>> again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The first two weeks look good for me > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> G > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> I should also note that Stephan expressed that his > > >>>> attendance was > > >>>>>>> subject to his availability, travel, etc. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -acbegen > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > > >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > > >>>>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > >>>>>>>> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Greg/Marshall, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we > > >>>>>>>> should decide > > >>>>>>>>> on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the > > >>>>>>>> bay area for > > >>>>>>>>> the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that > > >>>>>>>> Stephan Wenger > > >>>>>>>>> told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold > > >> the meeting > > >>>>>>>> in the bay > > >>>>>>>>> area. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Then let's meet in the Bay area. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Marshall > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good > > >> for everybody. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Team, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and > > >>>>>> Stephan, (as the > > >>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>> team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. > > >>>>>> Specifically, we > > >>>>>>>>> need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing > > >>>> with the media > > >>>>>>>>> dependency is suitable for us or not. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > > >>>>>>>>> dependenc > > >>>>>>>>> y-00.txt > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> During a short meeting during the IETF, we > > >> decided that the > > >>>>>>>> best way > > >>>>>>>>> to do is to come up with examples. For example, > > >>>> suppose that we > > >>>>>>>>> use layered or multiple description encoded > > >> sources and have > > >>>>>>>>> multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each > > >>>>>> layer/description. > > >>>>>>>>> An > > >>>>>>>> important > > >>>>>>>>> question: > > >>>>>>>>> Would > > >>>>>>>>> having the source in layered dependency require us to > > >>>>>> have the FEC > > >>>>>>>>> streams in layered dependency as well or not? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" > > >>>>>> in the SDP > > >>>>>>>>> draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > > >>>>>>>> additiveness. > > >>>>>>>>> As one can imagine, there are several other > > >> scenarios with > > >>>>>>>> complicated > > >>>>>>>>> relationships between the source and FEC > > >> streams. How far > > >>>>>>>> do we want > > >>>>>>>>> to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> The bottomline is if we can use the above > > >> draft, we should. > > >>>>>>>> If not, we > > >>>>>>>>> should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they > > >>>>>>>> already proposed. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> This is probably the most important task we > > >> need to work on > > >>>>>>>> before the > > >>>>>>>>> next IETF. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Any comments, suggestions? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>> -acbegen > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > > >>>>>>>>>> To: Marshall Eubanks > > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I > > >>>>>>>> think that we > > >>>>>>>>>>> should, but that of course has some restrictions > > >>>> (see rfc2418 > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3160) : > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings > > >>>>>> between IETFs. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF > > >>>> meetings, > > >>>>>>>>>> however -- a > > >>>>>>>>>>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > > >>>>>>>>>> they're not fond > > >>>>>>>>>>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for > > >>>>>> example. Interim > > >>>>>>>>>>> meetings require AD approval, and need to > > >> be announced > > >>>>>>>>>> at least one > > >>>>>>>>>>> month in advance. Location and timing > > >> need to allow > > >>>>>>>>>> fair access for > > >>>>>>>>>>> all participants. Like regular IETF > > >> meetings, someone > > >>>>>>>>>> needs to take > > >>>>>>>>>>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, > > >> and the group > > >>>>>>>>>> needs to take > > >>>>>>>>>>> attendance. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) > > >>>>>> that interim > > >>>>>>>>>>> meetings should not happen within the month > > >>>> before the IETF > > >>>>>>>>>> meeting ? > > >>>>>>>>>>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to > > >>>>>> January 10th - > > >>>>>>>>>>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want > > >> meet on the > > >>>>>>>>>> weekend), to > > >>>>>>>>>>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can > > >> comment on this > > >>>>>>>>>> restriction > > >>>>>>>>>>> if he wants. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim > > >>>>>>>> meetings (as they > > >>>>>>>>>>> did for the Design Team meetings). > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> If we want to do an interim, I will > > >> immediately raise the > > >>>>>>>> date and > > >>>>>>>>>>> location issue on the main mailing list. We > > >> cannot decide > > >>>>>>>>>> here for the > > >>>>>>>>>>> group. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would > > >> not be a good > > >>>>>>>>>> location... > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Greg > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Marshall > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati > > >> (rajiva) wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and > > >> SJ, so next > > >>>>>>>> should be > > >>>>>>>>>>>> RTP, NC. :) > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rajiv > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern > > >>>>>> Standard Time > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim > > >> meeting in Jan > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG > > >> meeting about the > > >>>>>>>>>> next steps, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one > > >> meeting and > > >>>>>>>>>> one concall) > > >>>>>>>>>>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The first/best week for me next year is the > > >> last week of > > >>>>>>>>>> Jan / first > > >>>>>>>>>>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the > > >> group. :) Or > > >>>>>>>>>> are there > > >>>>>>>>>>>> other suggestions of a host location? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look > > >> like so we can > > >>>>>>>>>> nail down a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Greg > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > ------=_Part_10712_10413475.1197928072851 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline that is also fine for me...

On Dec 17, 2007 12:35 PM, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 11:51 AM, Mark Watson <mark@digitalfountain.com> wrote:
> Feb 5th (to 8th) is ATIS IIF, in South Carolina, so probably I could not
> make the 4th either due to travel time.
>
> The previous week, or the next week, would be fine.

The next week doesn't work for Ali. The week before could work for me
- mtd week.

We need Mark in attendance, so how does the week of Jan28th look for everyone?

G

> ...Mark
>
>
>
> On 12/17/07 11:42 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" < rajiva@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 5h should also work, but not the 4th.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rajiv
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:42 PM
> >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships
> >>
> >> On Dec 17, 2007 11:21 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> >> <rajiva@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Greg,
> >>>
> >>> Feb 6th (Wed) works better for me.
> >>
> >> oops, you're right - 6th is Wed. So 4th and 5th don't work for you?
> >>
> >> Greg
> >>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Rajiv
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto: gjshep@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:24 PM
> >>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen)
> >>>
> >>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east
> >> may prefer not
> >>>> to travel on Sunday - both days work for me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down.
> >>>>
> >>>> G
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen)
> >> <abegen@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold
> >>>> the meeting
> >>>>> in the first week, if we can, to leave some space
> >> before the IETF
> >>>>> deadline.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -acbegen
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com ]
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM
> >>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it
> >>>>>> again in SJ - bldg 16 this time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The first two weeks look good for me
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> G
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen)
> >>>> <abegen@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> I should also note that Stephan expressed that his
> >>>> attendance was
> >>>>>>> subject to his availability, travel, etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -acbegen
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com ]
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM
> >>>>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen)
> >>>>>>>> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Greg/Marshall,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we
> >>>>>>>> should decide
> >>>>>>>>> on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the
> >>>>>>>> bay area for
> >>>>>>>>> the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that
> >>>>>>>> Stephan Wenger
> >>>>>>>>> told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold
> >> the meeting
> >>>>>>>> in the bay
> >>>>>>>>> area.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Then let's meet in the Bay area.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Marshall
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good
> >> for everybody.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Team,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and
> >>>>>> Stephan, (as the
> >>>>>>>>> design
> >>>>>>>>> team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues.
> >>>>>> Specifically, we
> >>>>>>>>> need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing
> >>>> with the media
> >>>>>>>>> dependency is suitable for us or not.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-
> >>>>>>>>> dependenc
> >>>>>>>>> y-00.txt
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> During a short meeting during the IETF, we
> >> decided that the
> >>>>>>>> best way
> >>>>>>>>> to do is to come up with examples. For example,
> >>>> suppose that we
> >>>>>>>>> use layered or multiple description encoded
> >> sources and have
> >>>>>>>>> multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each
> >>>>>> layer/description.
> >>>>>>>>> An
> >>>>>>>> important
> >>>>>>>>> question:
> >>>>>>>>> Would
> >>>>>>>>> having the source in layered dependency require us to
> >>>>>> have the FEC
> >>>>>>>>> streams in layered dependency as well or not?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC"
> >>>>>> in the SDP
> >>>>>>>>> draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with
> >>>>>>>> additiveness.
> >>>>>>>>> As one can imagine, there are several other
> >> scenarios with
> >>>>>>>> complicated
> >>>>>>>>> relationships between the source and FEC
> >> streams. How far
> >>>>>>>> do we want
> >>>>>>>>> to go? How much flexibility do we want to support?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The bottomline is if we can use the above
> >> draft, we should.
> >>>>>>>> If not, we
> >>>>>>>>> should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they
> >>>>>>>> already proposed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is probably the most important task we
> >> need to work on
> >>>>>>>> before the
> >>>>>>>>> next IETF.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Any comments, suggestions?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> -acbegen
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto: gjshep@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> To: Marshall Eubanks
> >>>>>>>>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks
> >>>>>> <tme@multicasttech.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I
> >>>>>>>> think that we
> >>>>>>>>>>> should, but that of course has some restrictions
> >>>> (see rfc2418
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3160) :
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>     Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings
> >>>>>> between IETFs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>     Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF
> >>>> meetings,
> >>>>>>>>>> however -- a
> >>>>>>>>>>>     group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location
> >>>>>>>>>> they're not fond
> >>>>>>>>>>>     of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for
> >>>>>> example.  Interim
> >>>>>>>>>>>     meetings require AD approval, and need to
> >> be announced
> >>>>>>>>>> at least one
> >>>>>>>>>>>     month in advance.  Location and timing
> >> need to allow
> >>>>>>>>>> fair access for
> >>>>>>>>>>>     all participants.  Like regular IETF
> >> meetings, someone
> >>>>>>>>>> needs to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>     notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org,
> >> and the group
> >>>>>>>>>> needs to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>     attendance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere)
> >>>>>> that interim
> >>>>>>>>>>> meetings should not happen within the month
> >>>> before the IETF
> >>>>>>>>>> meeting ?
> >>>>>>>>>>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to
> >>>>>> January 10th -
> >>>>>>>>>>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want
> >> meet on the
> >>>>>>>>>> weekend), to
> >>>>>>>>>>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can
> >> comment on this
> >>>>>>>>>> restriction
> >>>>>>>>>>> if he wants.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim
> >>>>>>>> meetings (as they
> >>>>>>>>>>> did for the Design Team meetings).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If we want to do an interim, I will
> >> immediately raise the
> >>>>>>>> date and
> >>>>>>>>>>> location issue on the main mailing list. We
> >> cannot decide
> >>>>>>>>>> here for the
> >>>>>>>>>>> group.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would
> >> not be a good
> >>>>>>>>>> location...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Greg
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Marshall
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati
> >> (rajiva) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and
> >> SJ, so next
> >>>>>>>> should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> RTP, NC. :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rajiv
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>>> From:   Greg Shepherd [mailto: gjshep@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent:   Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern
> >>>>>> Standard Time
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To:     fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:        [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim
> >> meeting in Jan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG
> >> meeting about the
> >>>>>>>>>> next steps,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one
> >> meeting and
> >>>>>>>>>> one concall)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> before Philly to keep us on task.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The first/best week for me next year is the
> >> last week of
> >>>>>>>>>> Jan / first
> >>>>>>>>>>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the
> >> group. :) Or
> >>>>>>>>>> are there
> >>>>>>>>>>>> other suggestions of a host location?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look
> >> like so we can
> >>>>>>>>>> nail down a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> date before the year starts to fill up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
> >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
> > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
> >
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto

------=_Part_10712_10413475.1197928072851-- --===============1155663657== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto --===============1155663657==-- From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 20:16:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4R44-0007kO-9C; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:16:08 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4R43-0007kJ-UD for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:16:08 -0500 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4R43-0007fU-28 for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:16:07 -0500 Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 9729434; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:16:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <38c19b540712171024r5cbc5c12r459a7ff867e46fcf@mail.gmail.com> References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6115292@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712081520lf501b79v69764b7ce9977c19@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636767D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <00453BEC-2778-41A9-9CD9-4C44872AD7FF@multicasttech.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540636779C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712170943x4e4272f5s6a8534aa3984a836@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54063677DA@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540712171024r5cbc5c12r459a7ff867e46fcf@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <60F028F8-FD2E-41E7-A95B-C6E2BE55A37F@multicasttech.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marshall Eubanks Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:15:58 -0500 To: "Greg Shepherd" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cdeeb24e6b743a852c396a4af0e53c8f Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org My biggest issue is my wife's radiation treatments, which should be finished by mid-January. Other than that, I am available. I would prefer not to take up a Thursday. Marshall On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east may prefer not > to travel on Sunday - both days work for me. > > Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down. > > G > > On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: >> I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold the >> meeting >> in the first week, if we can, to leave some space before the IETF >> deadline. >> >> -acbegen >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM >>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) >> >>> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships >>> >>> Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it >>> again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. >>> >>> The first two weeks look good for me >>> >>> G >>> >>> On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) >>> wrote: >>>> I should also note that Stephan expressed that his attendance was >>>> subject to his availability, travel, etc. >>>> >>>> -acbegen >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] >>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM >>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) >>>>> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Greg/Marshall, >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we >>>>> should decide >>>>>> on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the >>>>> bay area for >>>>>> the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that >>>>> Stephan Wenger >>>>>> told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold the meeting >>>>> in the bay >>>>>> area. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then let's meet in the Bay area. >>>>> >>>>> Marshall >>>>> >>>>>> As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good for everybody. >>>>>> >>>>>> Team, >>>>>> >>>>>> Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and >>> Stephan, (as the >>>>>> design >>>>>> team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. >>> Specifically, we >>>>>> need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing with the media >>>>>> dependency is suitable for us or not. >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- >>>>>> dependenc >>>>>> y-00.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> During a short meeting during the IETF, we decided that the >>>>> best way >>>>>> to do is to come up with examples. For example, suppose that we >>>>>> use layered or multiple description encoded sources and have >>>>>> multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each >>> layer/description. >>>>>> An >>>>> important >>>>>> question: >>>>>> Would >>>>>> having the source in layered dependency require us to >>> have the FEC >>>>>> streams in layered dependency as well or not? >>>>>> >>>>>> Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" >>> in the SDP >>>>>> draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with >>>>> additiveness. >>>>>> As one can imagine, there are several other scenarios with >>>>> complicated >>>>>> relationships between the source and FEC streams. How far >>>>> do we want >>>>>> to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? >>>>>> >>>>>> The bottomline is if we can use the above draft, we should. >>>>> If not, we >>>>>> should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they >>>>> already proposed. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is probably the most important task we need to work on >>>>> before the >>>>>> next IETF. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any comments, suggestions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> -acbegen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM >>>>>>> To: Marshall Eubanks >>>>>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I >>>>> think that we >>>>>>>> should, but that of course has some restrictions (see rfc2418 >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> 3160) : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings >>> between IETFs. >>>>>>>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, >>>>>>> however -- a >>>>>>>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location >>>>>>> they're not fond >>>>>>>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for >>> example. Interim >>>>>>>> meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced >>>>>>> at least one >>>>>>>> month in advance. Location and timing need to allow >>>>>>> fair access for >>>>>>>> all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone >>>>>>> needs to take >>>>>>>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group >>>>>>> needs to take >>>>>>>> attendance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) >>> that interim >>>>>>>> meetings should not happen within the month before the IETF >>>>>>> meeting ? >>>>>>>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to >>> January 10th - >>>>>>>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want meet on the >>>>>>> weekend), to >>>>>>>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can comment on this >>>>>>> restriction >>>>>>>> if he wants. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim >>>>> meetings (as they >>>>>>>> did for the Design Team meetings). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we want to do an interim, I will immediately raise the >>>>> date and >>>>>>>> location issue on the main mailing list. We cannot decide >>>>>>> here for the >>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would not be a good >>>>>>> location... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marshall >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and SJ, so next >>>>> should be >>>>>>>>> RTP, NC. :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Rajiv >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern >>> Standard Time >>>>>>>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the >>>>>>> next steps, >>>>>>>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and >>>>>>> one concall) >>>>>>>>> before Philly to keep us on task. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The first/best week for me next year is the last week of >>>>>>> Jan / first >>>>>>>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or >>>>>>> are there >>>>>>>>> other suggestions of a host location? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can >>>>>>> nail down a >>>>>>>>> date before the year starts to fill up. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list >>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 22:13:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Su1-0008RH-53; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:13:53 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Su0-0008RC-54 for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:13:52 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Sty-0001Kh-PZ for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:13:52 -0500 Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2007 19:13:49 -0800 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBI3DnZu002570; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:13:49 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBI3DniZ012490; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:13:49 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:13:49 -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 Subject: RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:13:12 -0500 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6049CA41E@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships Thread-Index: AchA5NvIeNQQeWQmQye3jABvaozh3wAAA7eQAABTix8ADQkKsA== From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Mark Watson" , "Greg Shepherd" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2007 03:13:49.0087 (UTC) FILETIME=[02281AF0:01C84124] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=11839; t=1197947629; x=1198811629; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[FECFRAME-PROTO]=20Re=3A=20FEC=20depend ency=20relationships |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Mark=20Watson=22=20,=0A =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22Greg=20Shepherd=22=20; bh=8Ozy51WSPYTIl7vo5lbePjJQ653ZkfXUrfSGhzoBwN4=; b=f96YXet59uG9nrb8z806YF2M6pdNeG0nBDRpSSm9JJgoAM5d6v9it3xOTN 6ubF0Sw0Q4x7NrgYXRH8wOZS/DahqCjyGnCMdyO2sNwsCY7bzkRNSR0Y79v6 lOvJvYFS59; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: db284e046c8702920c1c6125bc4d0b7a Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org =20 If you are in SC on the 5th, then we could meet in NC on the 4th then. :-) Myrtle Beach is quite nearby from here. :) Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Watson [mailto:mark@digitalfountain.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:52 PM > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Greg Shepherd > Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships >=20 > Feb 5th (to 8th) is ATIS IIF, in South Carolina, so probably=20 > I could not make the 4th either due to travel time. >=20 > The previous week, or the next week, would be fine. >=20 > ...Mark >=20 >=20 > On 12/17/07 11:42 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote: >=20 > >=20 > > 5h should also work, but not the 4th. > >=20 > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > =20 > >=20 > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:42 PM > >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > >>=20 > >> On Dec 17, 2007 11:21 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > >> wrote: > >>> Hi Greg, > >>>=20 > >>> Feb 6th (Wed) works better for me. > >>=20 > >> oops, you're right - 6th is Wed. So 4th and 5th don't work for you? > >>=20 > >> Greg > >>=20 > >>> Cheers, > >>> Rajiv > >>>=20 > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:24 PM > >>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > >>>=20 > >>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > >>>>=20 > >>>> Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east > >> may prefer not > >>>> to travel on Sunday - both days work for me. > >>>>=20 > >>>> Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down. > >>>>=20 > >>>> G > >>>>=20 > >>>> On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) > >> wrote: > >>>>> I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold > >>>> the meeting > >>>>> in the first week, if we can, to leave some space > >> before the IETF > >>>>> deadline. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> -acbegen > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM > >>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it > >>>>>> again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> The first two weeks look good for me > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> G > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> I should also note that Stephan expressed that his > >>>> attendance was > >>>>>>> subject to his availability, travel, etc. > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> -acbegen > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > >>>>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > >>>>>>>> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Greg/Marshall, > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we > >>>>>>>> should decide > >>>>>>>>> on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the > >>>>>>>> bay area for > >>>>>>>>> the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that > >>>>>>>> Stephan Wenger > >>>>>>>>> told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold > >> the meeting > >>>>>>>> in the bay > >>>>>>>>> area. > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Then let's meet in the Bay area. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Marshall > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good > >> for everybody. > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Team, > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and > >>>>>> Stephan, (as the > >>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>> team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. > >>>>>> Specifically, we > >>>>>>>>> need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing > >>>> with the media > >>>>>>>>> dependency is suitable for us or not. > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > >>>>>>>>> dependenc > >>>>>>>>> y-00.txt > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> During a short meeting during the IETF, we > >> decided that the > >>>>>>>> best way > >>>>>>>>> to do is to come up with examples. For example, > >>>> suppose that we > >>>>>>>>> use layered or multiple description encoded > >> sources and have > >>>>>>>>> multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each > >>>>>> layer/description. > >>>>>>>>> An > >>>>>>>> important > >>>>>>>>> question: > >>>>>>>>> Would > >>>>>>>>> having the source in layered dependency require us to > >>>>>> have the FEC > >>>>>>>>> streams in layered dependency as well or not? > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" > >>>>>> in the SDP > >>>>>>>>> draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > >>>>>>>> additiveness. > >>>>>>>>> As one can imagine, there are several other > >> scenarios with > >>>>>>>> complicated > >>>>>>>>> relationships between the source and FEC > >> streams. How far > >>>>>>>> do we want > >>>>>>>>> to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> The bottomline is if we can use the above > >> draft, we should. > >>>>>>>> If not, we > >>>>>>>>> should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they > >>>>>>>> already proposed. > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> This is probably the most important task we > >> need to work on > >>>>>>>> before the > >>>>>>>>> next IETF. > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Any comments, suggestions? > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>> -acbegen > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > >>>>>>>>>> To: Marshall Eubanks > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I > >>>>>>>> think that we > >>>>>>>>>>> should, but that of course has some restrictions > >>>> (see rfc2418 > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> 3160) : > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings > >>>>>> between IETFs. > >>>>>>>>>>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF > >>>> meetings, > >>>>>>>>>> however -- a > >>>>>>>>>>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > >>>>>>>>>> they're not fond > >>>>>>>>>>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for > >>>>>> example. Interim > >>>>>>>>>>> meetings require AD approval, and need to > >> be announced > >>>>>>>>>> at least one > >>>>>>>>>>> month in advance. Location and timing > >> need to allow > >>>>>>>>>> fair access for > >>>>>>>>>>> all participants. Like regular IETF > >> meetings, someone > >>>>>>>>>> needs to take > >>>>>>>>>>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, > >> and the group > >>>>>>>>>> needs to take > >>>>>>>>>>> attendance. > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) > >>>>>> that interim > >>>>>>>>>>> meetings should not happen within the month > >>>> before the IETF > >>>>>>>>>> meeting ? > >>>>>>>>>>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to > >>>>>> January 10th - > >>>>>>>>>>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want > >> meet on the > >>>>>>>>>> weekend), to > >>>>>>>>>>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can > >> comment on this > >>>>>>>>>> restriction > >>>>>>>>>>> if he wants. > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim > >>>>>>>> meetings (as they > >>>>>>>>>>> did for the Design Team meetings). > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> If we want to do an interim, I will > >> immediately raise the > >>>>>>>> date and > >>>>>>>>>>> location issue on the main mailing list. We > >> cannot decide > >>>>>>>>>> here for the > >>>>>>>>>>> group. > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would > >> not be a good > >>>>>>>>>> location... > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Greg > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> Marshall > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati > >> (rajiva) wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and > >> SJ, so next > >>>>>>>> should be > >>>>>>>>>>>> RTP, NC. :) > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rajiv > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern > >>>>>> Standard Time > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim > >> meeting in Jan > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG > >> meeting about the > >>>>>>>>>> next steps, > >>>>>>>>>>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one > >> meeting and > >>>>>>>>>> one concall) > >>>>>>>>>>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> The first/best week for me next year is the > >> last week of > >>>>>>>>>> Jan / first > >>>>>>>>>>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the > >> group. :) Or > >>>>>>>>>> are there > >>>>>>>>>>>> other suggestions of a host location? > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look > >> like so we can > >>>>>>>>>> nail down a > >>>>>>>>>>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Greg > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>=20 > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >>>>=20 > >>>=20 > >>=20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 17 22:26:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4T67-0000I4-Vx; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:26:23 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4T66-0000Hz-Vb for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:26:22 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4T65-0001Tm-FI for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:26:22 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2007 19:26:21 -0800 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBI3QKgF015061; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:26:20 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBI3QG41021665; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:26:16 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:26:16 -0800 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 Subject: RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:26:10 -0800 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406367B1D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6049CA41E@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships thread-index: AchA5NvIeNQQeWQmQye3jABvaozh3wAAA7eQAABTix8ADQkKsAACpCfw References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6049CA41E@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" , "Mark Watson" , "Greg Shepherd" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2007 03:26:16.0587 (UTC) FILETIME=[BFB38DB0:01C84125] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=13132; t=1197948380; x=1198812380; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[FECFRAME-PROTO]=20Re=3A=20FEC=20depend ency=20relationships |Sender:=20; bh=VKFRvF9XFRQ9oFsEO3Icpm3fe0/NEzm2g0rhOD0ZXU4=; b=jLdTkzpGe/9tUtHJOfftF2ba+9gM1VZcrHqw0dhzSjmg5Kl5KoX8cqyqz5 eQad3RXFupScLa1kXmWmURKilxs+z5N6YLMs/URxjW4lValRwy863Acqu2ky 1A2/pFK1PI; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 4166dd0e0c668adc975c3d3e0f1bce3b Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Good point :) BTW, are we targeting for one day or two days? -acbegen=20 (available for both SJC and RTP anyday starting from Jan 31, excluding Feb 10-13) > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva)=20 > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:13 PM > To: Mark Watson; Greg Shepherd > Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships >=20 > =20 > If you are in SC on the 5th, then we could meet in NC on the 4th then. > :-) > Myrtle Beach is quite nearby from here. :) >=20 > Cheers, > Rajiv >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Watson [mailto:mark@digitalfountain.com] > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:52 PM > > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Greg Shepherd > > Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > >=20 > > Feb 5th (to 8th) is ATIS IIF, in South Carolina, so=20 > probably I could=20 > > not make the 4th either due to travel time. > >=20 > > The previous week, or the next week, would be fine. > >=20 > > ...Mark > >=20 > >=20 > > On 12/17/07 11:42 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)"=20 > wrote: > >=20 > > >=20 > > > 5h should also work, but not the 4th. > > >=20 > > > Cheers, > > > Rajiv > > > =20 > > >=20 > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:42 PM > > >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > > >> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > > >>=20 > > >> On Dec 17, 2007 11:21 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)=20 > =20 > > >> wrote: > > >>> Hi Greg, > > >>>=20 > > >>> Feb 6th (Wed) works better for me. > > >>=20 > > >> oops, you're right - 6th is Wed. So 4th and 5th don't=20 > work for you? > > >>=20 > > >> Greg > > >>=20 > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> Rajiv > > >>>=20 > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:24 PM > > >>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > >>>=20 > > >>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Re: FEC dependency relationships > > >>>>=20 > > >>>> Okay, so Feb 5th or 6th? Those traveling from the east > > >> may prefer not > > >>>> to travel on Sunday - both days work for me. > > >>>>=20 > > >>>> Please reply with your prefs and we can pin this down. > > >>>>=20 > > >>>> G > > >>>>=20 > > >>>> On Dec 17, 2007 10:14 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) > > >> wrote: > > >>>>> I am available except February 10-13, 2008. We should hold > > >>>> the meeting > > >>>>> in the first week, if we can, to leave some space > > >> before the IETF > > >>>>> deadline. > > >>>>>=20 > > >>>>> -acbegen > > >>>>>=20 > > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 AM > > >>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > >>>>>=20 > > >>>>>> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > >>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>> Okay, then lets pick a date in early feb and we can host it=20 > > >>>>>> again in SJ - bldg 16 this time. > > >>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>> The first two weeks look good for me > > >>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>> G > > >>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007 9:37 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> I should also note that Stephan expressed that his > > >>>> attendance was > > >>>>>>> subject to his availability, travel, etc. > > >>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>> -acbegen > > >>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > > >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:37 AM > > >>>>>>>> To: Ali Begen (abegen) > > >>>>>>>> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: FEC dependency relationships > > >>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > > >>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> Greg/Marshall, > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> Given the varying individual requirements, I believe we > > >>>>>>>> should decide > > >>>>>>>>> on a design team meeting date soon. While I'd prefer the > > >>>>>>>> bay area for > > >>>>>>>>> the venue, I am also OK for RTP, NC. I should note that > > >>>>>>>> Stephan Wenger > > >>>>>>>>> told me he could join our meeting if we'd hold > > >> the meeting > > >>>>>>>> in the bay > > >>>>>>>>> area. > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>> Then let's meet in the Bay area. > > >>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>> Marshall > > >>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> As far as I can remember, early Feb. is good > > >> for everybody. > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> Team, > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> Based on a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs and > > >>>>>> Stephan, (as the > > >>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>> team) we need to study the FEC dependency issues. > > >>>>>> Specifically, we > > >>>>>>>>> need to decide whether the MMUSIC draft dealing > > >>>> with the media > > >>>>>>>>> dependency is suitable for us or not. > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding- > > >>>>>>>>> dependenc > > >>>>>>>>> y-00.txt > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> During a short meeting during the IETF, we > > >> decided that the > > >>>>>>>> best way > > >>>>>>>>> to do is to come up with examples. For example, > > >>>> suppose that we > > >>>>>>>>> use layered or multiple description encoded > > >> sources and have > > >>>>>>>>> multiple layers of FEC streams protecting each > > >>>>>> layer/description. > > >>>>>>>>> An > > >>>>>>>> important > > >>>>>>>>> question: > > >>>>>>>>> Would > > >>>>>>>>> having the source in layered dependency require us to > > >>>>>> have the FEC > > >>>>>>>>> streams in layered dependency as well or not? > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> Previously, we introduced the concept of "additive FEC" > > >>>>>> in the SDP > > >>>>>>>>> draft. Clearly, layered dependency would not agree with > > >>>>>>>> additiveness. > > >>>>>>>>> As one can imagine, there are several other > > >> scenarios with > > >>>>>>>> complicated > > >>>>>>>>> relationships between the source and FEC > > >> streams. How far > > >>>>>>>> do we want > > >>>>>>>>> to go? How much flexibility do we want to support? > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> The bottomline is if we can use the above > > >> draft, we should. > > >>>>>>>> If not, we > > >>>>>>>>> should minimize the overlap and not repeat what they > > >>>>>>>> already proposed. > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> This is probably the most important task we > > >> need to work on > > >>>>>>>> before the > > >>>>>>>>> next IETF. > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> Any comments, suggestions? > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>> -acbegen > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:20 PM > > >>>>>>>>>> To: Marshall Eubanks > > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan > > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007 10:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Is the intention to have a proper interim meeting ? I > > >>>>>>>> think that we > > >>>>>>>>>>> should, but that of course has some restrictions > > >>>> (see rfc2418 > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3160) : > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>> Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings > > >>>>>> between IETFs. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF > > >>>> meetings, > > >>>>>>>>>> however -- a > > >>>>>>>>>>> group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location > > >>>>>>>>>> they're not fond > > >>>>>>>>>>> of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for > > >>>>>> example. Interim > > >>>>>>>>>>> meetings require AD approval, and need to > > >> be announced > > >>>>>>>>>> at least one > > >>>>>>>>>>> month in advance. Location and timing > > >> need to allow > > >>>>>>>>>> fair access for > > >>>>>>>>>>> all participants. Like regular IETF > > >> meetings, someone > > >>>>>>>>>> needs to take > > >>>>>>>>>>> notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, > > >> and the group > > >>>>>>>>>> needs to take > > >>>>>>>>>>> attendance. > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>> Isn't there a rule (but I cannot find it anywhere) > > >>>>>> that interim > > >>>>>>>>>>> meetings should not happen within the month > > >>>> before the IETF > > >>>>>>>>>> meeting ? > > >>>>>>>>>>> As Monday is December 10th, that restricts us to > > >>>>>> January 10th - > > >>>>>>>>>>> February 9th, and in practice (unless we want > > >> meet on the > > >>>>>>>>>> weekend), to > > >>>>>>>>>>> January 12th to February 6th. Our AD can > > >> comment on this > > >>>>>>>>>> restriction > > >>>>>>>>>>> if he wants. > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>> The usual "Note Well" rules also apply to interim > > >>>>>>>> meetings (as they > > >>>>>>>>>>> did for the Design Team meetings). > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>> If we want to do an interim, I will > > >> immediately raise the > > >>>>>>>> date and > > >>>>>>>>>>> location issue on the main mailing list. We > > >> cannot decide > > >>>>>>>>>> here for the > > >>>>>>>>>>> group. > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>> I guess based on the above that Cancun would > > >> not be a good > > >>>>>>>>>> location... > > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>> If you can find a host in Cancun I'll be there. :) > > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>> Greg > > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>> Marshall > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Rajiv Asati > > >> (rajiva) wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> With respect to Location, we covered DC and > > >> SJ, so next > > >>>>>>>> should be > > >>>>>>>>>>>> RTP, NC. :) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rajiv > > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 05:01 PM Eastern > > >>>>>> Standard Time > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim > > >> meeting in Jan > > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I spoke with a few of you after the WG > > >> meeting about the > > >>>>>>>>>> next steps, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and using two more interim meetings (or one > > >> meeting and > > >>>>>>>>>> one concall) > > >>>>>>>>>>>> before Philly to keep us on task. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The first/best week for me next year is the > > >> last week of > > >>>>>>>>>> Jan / first > > >>>>>>>>>>>> week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the > > >> group. :) Or > > >>>>>>>>>> are there > > >>>>>>>>>>>> other suggestions of a host location? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look > > >> like so we can > > >>>>>>>>>> nail down a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> date before the year starts to fill up. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Greg > > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org=20 > > >>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>>=20 > > >>>>>=20 > > >>>>=20 > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > >>>> FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >>>>=20 > > >>>=20 > > >>=20 > > >=20 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > > > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto > > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto >=20 _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto From fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 20 10:58:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5NnM-0002v2-Kg; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:58:48 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5NnL-0002rY-DK for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:58:47 -0500 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5NnL-0000rx-4Y for fecframe-proto@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:58:47 -0500 Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 9923305; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:58:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: <38c19b540712071401q70e5254ao6b3d8e710f34a2cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <38c19b540712071401q70e5254ao6b3d8e710f34a2cb@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <52A4A3C0-3EB5-4574-81F1-0E05A5A16CF3@multicasttech.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marshall Eubanks Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Interim meeting in Jan Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:58:41 -0500 To: Greg Shepherd X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org I have just learned that I probably will have to be in Europe for February 4th and 5th. I should know for sure by tomorrow. Marshall On Dec 7, 2007, at 5:01 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > I spoke with a few of you after the WG meeting about the next steps, > and using two more interim meetings (or one meeting and one concall) > before Philly to keep us on task. > > The first/best week for me next year is the last week of Jan / first > week of Feb. SJ worked well for most of the group. :) Or are there > other suggestions of a host location? > > Please let me know what your Jan/Feb look like so we can nail down a > date before the year starts to fill up. > > Thanks, > Greg > > _______________________________________________ > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list > FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto