Re: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 28 August 2014 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2AD1A89A7 for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jZO_u-goXRQo for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0D641A8987 for <dart@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s7SKP6xG073590 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:25:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BC66841@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:25:05 -0500
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 430950305.599164-88e14679d46818fc1f90ffd3cc978fed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EF7D019B-08CF-4C0B-BF89-0F37A0AD3FFB@nostrum.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BC667DE@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <2B82DD06-83A4-4710-B614-16F5351A0A7F@nostrum.com> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BC66841@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/DXMVq7BJT8tGipaxAix8jyso2NM
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "dart@ietf.org" <dart@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward
X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" <dart.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dart>, <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dart/>
List-Post: <mailto:dart@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart>, <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 20:25:29 -0000

Okay, works for me.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Aug 28, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com>; wrote:

>> If we think we can close this as not a real issue (or at least not an issue we
>> plan to address), but there's some risk it might come back up at IETF LC, then
>> that's fine. But if we are saying there is an open issue that needs closure,
>> but we can close it during IETF last call, then I have reservations. The
>> version that goes to IETF LC should be one that the working group believes to
>> be as complete is it's going to get.
> 
> In private discussion, both Harald and I favored saying less (rather than more)
> about RMCAT in this DART draft.  For that reason I think "at least not
> an issue we plan to address" is a valid characterization of this item.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 3:44 PM
>> To: Black, David; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>> Cc: dart@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward
>> 
>> (as chair)
>> 
>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com>; wrote:
>> 
>>> [E] Open issue: Harald Alvestrand's concerns about "differential treatment"
>>> wrt Section 5.1 .  I don't completely understand these concerns, and suspect
>>> that they may require an email discussion across the DART and RMCAT WGs
>>> to sort through.
>>> 
>>> --> Deferred - Harald wanted to think about this, and I've seen nothing
>>> --> further.  I'd suggest that IETF Last Call as an appropriate opportunity
>>> --> to share any further thoughts, so I don't think there's anything to be
>> done
>>> --> about this now.
>> 
>> I have mixed feelings on this.
>> 
>> If we think we can close this as not a real issue (or at least not an issue we
>> plan to address), but there's some risk it might come back up at IETF LC, then
>> that's fine. But if we are saying there is an open issue that needs closure,
>> but we can close it during IETF last call, then I have reservations. The
>> version that goes to IETF LC should be one that the working group believes to
>> be as complete is it's going to get.
>> 
>> David, thoughts?
>> 
>> Harald, do you care to comment further?