Subject: [Fecframe] Fwd: IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf rtp-raptor

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 07:29:51 -0700

*,

There are a few things holding up the config-sig draft, but the one we
need to help with is:

MUST this doc progress as experimental, or is there WG consensus to
move it to informational?

Please reply promptly to the list.

Thanks!,
Greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Harrington <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:23 AM
Subject: IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf rtp-raptor
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked],
[email-masked]

Hi,

The IESG reviewed the config signaling and rtp-raptor drafts.
We have work to do.

config-signaling:
1) Can we publish this as Informational?
       Is that a problem for any cross-SDO work?
       If this is published as Informational, then compliance is no
longer appropriate - you don't comply to an Informational document. so
the RFC2119 keywords should disappear.

2) Ask the WG which version of GDOI is supposed to be used? See Sean's
Comments.

3) The document needs a good rewrite, especialy the Abstract and
Introduction. There are Discusses and Comments from many that the
document doesn't describe its purpose. This must be clairified.

4) There are Discusses and Comments from multiple ADs that must be
addressed:
Ron: just remove the reference; I don't know if you want to carry any
information from that expired mboned doc into this doc.
Adrian: clarify what is considered a signaling protocol in this doc
Gonzalo: no RFC2119 keywords in the Introduction (so normative text
must be moved)
Jari: internal references (are you using xml2rfc? they have ways to
keep that in sync for you)
       clarify how you expect this to be used re: SDP, XML, etc.
Russ: Gen-ART review
Sean: "MAY encrypt"
       MUST is for implementers - see RFC 3365 - unless this is
Informational.
       GDOI - explain how to use this. Clarify which version.
Stephen: "MAY encrypt" => "SHOULD encrypt using PGP or CMS"?
       GDOI - how to use to manage keys?
Pete: If Informational, then you can ignore his comment; If
Experimental, then describe the experiment.
Robert: new versus copied requirements; point to the existing rules
rather than copying them here.
       The #2 comment is critical - are implementers supposed to
choose from one of these protocols
       (i.e., these are the only ones allowed in a compliant
Experimental implementation?)

rpt-raptor:
1) A registration request must be sent to [email-masked] to
register the types, per section 5.1 of RFC 4288. The registration
template needs to be filled in

2) There are discusses from Sean, Pete, Robert and Stephen that must
be addressed, and Comments from Russ (the Gen-ART review) that should
be addressed in a Revised ID. I think the usage of RFC2119 keywords is
acceptable, but might be improved. Please read and **consider** Pete's
comments on RFC2119 usage, and then do what you think is right.

Please get these Revised IDs done asap so I can send them off to the
RFC Editor.

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
[email-masked] (preferred for ietf)
[email-masked]
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:21:53 -0800

I prefer it to be informational FWIW.

-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 11:30 PM
> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); [email-masked]
> Subject: [Fecframe] Fwd: IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf rtp-raptor
> 
> *,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe