IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Fecframe] IETF 67

Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov> Tue, 12 September 2006 17:11 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GNBnL-00030B-TC; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GNBnK-000306-G5 for fecframe@ietf.org; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:34 -0400
Received: from mx1.grc.nasa.gov ([128.156.11.68]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GNBnJ-00024Y-4R for fecframe@ietf.org; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:34 -0400
Received: from lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (seraph1.grc.nasa.gov [128.156.10.10]) by mx1.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF38C278 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apataki.grc.nasa.gov (apataki.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.35]) by lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k8CHBPJD007226; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apataki.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k8CHBOFw001078; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apataki.grc.nasa.gov ([127.0.0.1])by localhost (apataki.grc.nasa.gov [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)with ESMTP id 00953-01; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (gr2134391.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.44.123])by apataki.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k8CHBLlR001051;Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix, from userid 501)id 3C5914FCDE; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:46 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov>
To: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Fecframe] IETF 67
Message-ID: <20060912171146.GD30006@grc.nasa.gov>
References: <38c19b540609120437s72c14082i819b0be5fb0e6781@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <38c19b540609120437s72c14082i819b0be5fb0e6781@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
X-imss-version: 2.042
X-imss-result: Passed
X-imss-scores: Clean:99.90000 C:2 M:4 S:5 R:5
X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Cc: fecframe@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: weddy@grc.nasa.gov
List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework <fecframe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe>, <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/fecframe>
List-Post: <mailto:fecframe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe>, <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 04:37:12AM -0700, Greg Shepherd wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> We're coming up on IETF 67 and our next milestone of approving our
> requirements as presented in:
> 
> draft-ietf-fecframe-req-00
> 
> Since IETF 66 there has been little or no discussion on the list
> regarding the reqs, or anything else for that matter. Heck, many other
> IETF WG lists find plenty of non-issues to flame about but we can't
> even find the time or interest to discuss real topics. ;-)
> 
> So, please, read the above req draft and send your feedback here to
> the list. Sure, we could move the draft forward with the assumption
> that no feedback is positive feedback but that seems a bit
> disingenuous and actually pretty boring to be honest.
> 

I've read the draft.  Since the RMT FEC building block is described as
the basis for FECFRAME, I think there should be a short section on why
the FEC building block alone isn't sufficient for FECFRAME's goals.
Looking at the requirements, the FEC building block meets many of these
already, so it would be valuable to discuss exactly which requirements
require additional mechanisms.  Without this kind of "gap-analysis" of
the existing solution, the real goal of the work is unclear.

Also, a minor comment, I'd prefer if the requirements were numbered in
units of 1's rather than in 10's, but this really doesn't matter.  There
are also two requirements numbered 30 in the 00 version of the draft.

-- 
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems

_______________________________________________
Fecframe mailing list
Fecframe@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email