Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] A new informational draft on fec grouping issues

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Tue, 12 February 2008 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-proto-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-proto-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAAAA28C5D0; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:16:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7efqnDnAuXM3; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:16:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F381628C216; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:16:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: fecframe-proto@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fecframe-proto@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6815B28C216 for <fecframe-proto@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:16:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uioH8lsetynl for <fecframe-proto@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8B628C469 for <fecframe-proto@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2008 16:17:32 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1CLHV3e032501 for <fecframe-proto@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:17:32 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1CLHUaH006039 for <fecframe-proto@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:17:31 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); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:17:18 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:16:36 -0500
Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B604E6BCEA@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540683CF88@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [FECFRAME-PROTO] A new informational draft on fec grouping issues
Thread-Index: Achturhr2vPK5a3xQa6iuOp60OoAJgAAX5Ew
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: "Ali Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>, fecframe-proto@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2008 21:17:18.0436 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5E18A40:01C86DBC]
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] A new informational draft on fec grouping issues
X-BeenThere: fecframe-proto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Fecframe protocol design team <fecframe-proto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto>, <mailto:fecframe-proto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/fecframe-proto>
List-Post: <mailto:fecframe-proto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fecframe-proto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto>, <mailto:fecframe-proto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Ali,

We (the protocol team) should all collaborate to jointly author the new
draft, if/when it needs to be produced.

Also, why should it be the informational draft? 

Cheers,
Rajiv 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:fecframe-proto-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali 
> Begen (abegen)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:04 PM
> To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org
> Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] A new informational draft on fec 
> grouping issues
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> So far, we could not ignite a discussion in the MMUSIC WG 
> regarding the
> FEC grouping issues. So, it was suggested that I would write an
> informational draft, describe the problems and propose some 
> alternative
> solutions. So, that is what I did.
> 
> I am attaching the draft for your review. Note that this has to be
> submitted by Monday. So any comments within this week (before Friday)
> would be appreciated. It is important that we convey our issues
> appropriately. So, please take a few minutes to review the 
> document. It
> is very short, and should not take much time.
> 
> Thanks,
> -acbegen
> 
_______________________________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto