[FECFRAME-PROTO] Comments to draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-01.txt
"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Mon, 18 February 2008 02:27 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 6E3D03A6C2F; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:27:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.459
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.022, 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 wtF3PxZCK0ts; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:27:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB1D3A67F7; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:27:51 -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 9CAA83A6C2A for <fecframe-proto@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:27:49 -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 TnWJtYGjq2+Q for <fecframe-proto@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC143A6BDA for <fecframe-proto@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Feb 2008 21:27:46 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1I2RjOQ003469 for <fecframe-proto@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:27:45 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1I2QnSQ013804 for <fecframe-proto@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:27:45 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:27:17 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:27:17 -0500
Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B604F1F8D1@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Comments to draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-01.txt
Thread-Index: Achx1KTGZjnd1h5yRrSN+H47uPGstQ==
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: fecframe-proto@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2008 02:27:17.0461 (UTC) FILETIME=[C7D44850:01C871D5]
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Comments to draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-01.txt
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 Mark, While working on the signaling draft, I reviewed the framework-01 draft a bit carefully, and got the following (minor) comments for our consideration - ~~~~~~~~~~ 1) Section 1- Introduction .....It is expected that any complete content delivery protocol specification which makes use of this framework will address these signalling requirement(s). TO .....It is expected that any complete content delivery protocol specification which makes use of this framework will also make use of a signalling protocol to satisfy signalling requirement(s). The signalling protocol is part of the FEC framework. 2) Section 4- Architecture Overview .....The FEC framework does not define how the FEC framework configuration information for the stream is communicated from sender to receiver. This must be defined by any content delivery protocol specification as described in the following section. TO .....The FEC framework defines the usage of any signaling protocol by which FEC framework configuration information for the stream is communicated from sender to receiver. This must be adopted by any content delivery protocol specification making use of the FEC Framework. 3) Section 6- Protocol Overview Change the title to "Building Block Overview", since Protocol doesn't quite convey what protocol it is. 4) Section 2- Terminology 4.1 - Clarify the definition of 'Source Payload ID' and 'Repair Payload ID' a bit more. For example, Repair FEC Payload ID -- A FEC Payload ID to identify the source block and the mapping between the contained repair data and the original source block. Source Payload ID -- A FEC Payload ID to identify the mapping of source packet(s) with a source block. 4.2 - Add definition for "Restoration Window" (based on last meeting) as well as "instance" (which is used heavily in SDP Elements draft). We are freely interchanging stream and flow terms. Need to define them and use them appropriately. Suggest to stick with Flow. 5) Section 6 - Protocol Specification Are 'Source FEC Payload ID' and 'Repair Payload ID' conveyed by sender to receiver using the singaling protocol? Are they the same? Not clear in 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. 6) Section 6.5 - Why is FEC Framework Instance not a mandatory info The configuration information is to be formulated for each FEC framework instance. Hence, we should mandatorily include the "instance" identifier, if not already. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cheers, Rajiv _______________________________________________ FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list FECFRAME-PROTO@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
- [FECFRAME-PROTO] Comments to draft-ietf-fecframe-… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] Comments to draft-ietf-fecfr… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)