Subject: [Fecframe] IETF 67

From: "Greg Shepherd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:37:12 -0700

Hello,

We're coming up on IETF 67 and our next milestone of approving our
requirements as presented in:

draft-ietf-fecframe-req-00

Since IETF 66 there has been little or no discussion on the list
regarding the reqs, or anything else for that matter. Heck, many other
IETF WG lists find plenty of non-issues to flame about but we can't
even find the time or interest to discuss real topics. ;-)

So, please, read the above req draft and send your feedback here to
the list. Sure, we could move the draft forward with the assumption
that no feedback is positive feedback but that seems a bit
disingenuous and actually pretty boring to be honest.

Cheers,
Greg

_______________________________________________
Fecframe mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:46 -0400

> disingenuous and actually pretty boring to be honest.

I've read the draft.  Since the RMT FEC building block is described as
the basis for FECFRAME, I think there should be a short section on why
the FEC building block alone isn't sufficient for FECFRAME's goals.
Looking at the requirements, the FEC building block meets many of these
already, so it would be valuable to discuss exactly which requirements
require additional mechanisms.  Without this kind of "gap-analysis" of
the existing solution, the real goal of the work is unclear.

Also, a minor comment, I'd prefer if the requirements were numbered in
units of 1's rather than in 10's, but this really doesn't matter.  There
are also two requirements numbered 30 in the 00 version of the draft.

-- 
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems