Subject: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:14:21 -0700

PLEASE read and comment. Rajiv has incorporated the changes as per the
list discussion some time ago. However at the last WG meeting there
were a couple questions that came up but without Rajiv present we
chose to address them on the list. Since posting the minutes no
discussion of the document took place. According to the minutes:

<minutes>
In Rajiv's slides, the question is about the selection of the
announcement intervals. And should that draft be informational or
standards track?
</minutes>

Sorry, but that's all that was recorded in the minutes. If this
doesn't spark discussion I'll try to transcribe the relevant portion
of the audio recording.

Either way we need to move along. The WG is actually very close to
having all our documents moved to Pub Req!!

Post comments, questions, and/or votes of support to the list by the
end of next week - June 18, 2010.

Thanks,
Greg

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:28:51 -0700

Please read and provide your feedback. Nobody has responded at all to
the WGLC and we certainly cannot proceed without cooperation from the
WG.

Thanks,
Greg

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:33:19 -0700

My comments from the first wglc have been addressed. So I am fine with the document. I will let others decide on the status of the draft (informational or not).

-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WG LC draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe

---

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:33:47 -0500

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the reminder. Wrt two outstanding questions, we need WG
guidance: 

1) Announcement interval - Simpler method (1-200 sec), or Complex
method, or both. The last is what is included in section 4.1.1.

2) Standard vs. Informational - If the IANA considerations didn't exist,
then the draft could have been "informational". It is now suited for the
"Standards track". Thanks to Ali B. for pointing it out.
	
Cheers,
Rajiv

---

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:43:54 +0200

Hello everybody,

(I'm a little bit late, sorry for that!)

Otherwise I don't have major comments, just a few
suggested clarifications/typos.
Once corrected, I'll be fine with this document too.

Regards,

    Vincent

** Section 2:
    Current description of "Media Sender" suggests there's a
    single node ("producing *the* original..."). I don't think
    it's mandated. You can probably clarify this at the end of
    section 3 where you're saying that Media Sender and
    FEC Sender are not necessarily the same device.

** Section 2:
    You should probably refer explicitly to RFC2119
    (currently it's only listed in Normative References).

** Section 3, p.4: The following list does not follow the same
    order as in the FECFRAME framework I-D, section 6.5:
"   1. Identification of Source Flow(s)
     2. Identification of the repair flow(s)"
    => please, swap the order to avoid confusion.

    Also, please add "Explicit" to "Source FEC Payload ID"
    to be in line with the framework I-D.

** Section 3, typo:
    "Failure to receive the complete information, the signaling..."
    =>
    "In case of failure to..."

** Section 3, typo:
    'Media Source/Sender' => 'Media Sender'
    in order to comply with section 2.

** Section 3.1, typo:
    "to describe e.g. encode all of the configuration information..."
    => "to describe all of..."

** Section 4, typo: "FEC_Reciver11" => "FEC_Receiver11"

** Section 4.1.1, typo:
" on the router doesn't time out." => "on the router times out."

** Section 4.1.1, last paragraph:
    I suggest to add a carriage return before:

    "If the sender needs to modify the announced FEC Framework
     Configuration Information"

    in order to highlight this feature and the associated
    requirement. I also suggest to add "also" in:

    "The sender MUST also send the SAP deletion message..."

** Section 4.2.2, typo:
    "Instnace" => "Instance"

** Section 5, "security requirements":
    I gave a quick look at SAP security section. It is not
    said that the sender should use the provided security
    mechanism to check integrity and authenticate the source.
    It's now unavoidable, so I suggest to add SHOULD or
    RECOMMENDED for the integrity/auth services (but not
    encryption of course).

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:41:29 -0700

Excellent comments Vincent, thanks!

Okay, I think we've received solid feedback on this draft now. I know
we're past the date I posted but since the feedback was slow in coming
I thought it best to wait until enough people had a chance to read and
respond.

Rajiv,

Can you respond to the feedback so that we may more along? I think the
only outstanding question is whether we move this forward as PS or
Informational. Even those who responded to the WGLC didn't voice an
opinion about this direction. So..

*,

Please respond to the list to voice whether you feel this draft should
proceed as a Proposed Standard or as Informational.

Thanks,
Greg

---

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:39:53 -0500

Hi Vincent, 

Thanks for your time & review. All of your comments have been incorporated in the latest version.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the follow-up. I have just submitted the new version. Wrt your Q, this document is better suited as a PS, given the IANA dependency. 

Cheers,
Rajiv

> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:41 AM
> To: Vincent Roca
> Cc: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); [email-masked]