Re: [Fecframe] AD review: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Fri, 27 May 2011 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7978EE06B5 for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2011 12:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ePm5fBFFMGfK for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2011 12:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF75E07D5 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 May 2011 12:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; l=3810; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1306523450; x=1307733050; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=jj67WN60JmC6nJsPgWWCL+sTMb98N3bHM96s2jZwYsE=; b=beUQIQv/XY7lr2CAj/CejUBuU38C8rSJwe5dEGT3Ig7QXhgkzIdVHL4e g0yjyzjUX20a1ciFEVt013qJavO2zdt6Cue92FWQEEJgMARuAcJgLbUo+ S643xdvXxySnUxr2Ll9dctYNQobl5ILFoqjsNhjAf3H5W56OhVnW9voe5 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYBAPz1302rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABHCAaXb45Od6llnVKDFxqCbQSGY44kinE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,281,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="365713545"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 May 2011 19:10:50 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p4RJAoaf001087; Fri, 27 May 2011 19:10:50 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 27 May 2011 12:10:50 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:10:29 -0700
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540F20D920@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1AE3EDC81930474486070BB42B24E8EF@davidPC>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] AD review: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04
Thread-Index: Acv+5ll9WpQJ5KYoTbmLQcd2w3Idbwdt4+QwAADv9iA=
References: <E2716E5C9D6042A688999744F1644922@davidPC> <1AE3EDC81930474486070BB42B24E8EF@davidPC>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, fecframe@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 May 2011 19:10:50.0094 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA9470E0:01CC1CA1]
Cc: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD review: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04
X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework <fecframe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fecframe>, <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe>
List-Post: <mailto:fecframe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe>, <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 19:10:56 -0000

Hi David, 

I and then Vincent sent some comments to your email. Did you see them? I was waiting for your response back.

Thanks.
-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 2:46 PM
> To: 'David Harrington'; fecframe@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD review: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04
> 
> Hi Ali,
> 
> will you have a chance to work on this soon?
> I think these are almost all fairly simple editorial changes.
> Fixing these should make it easier to get through IESG Eval.
> 
> Thanks,
> David Harrington
> Director, IETF Transport Area
> ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
> dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com
> +1 603 828 1401 (cell)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org
> > [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 7:06 PM
> > To: fecframe@ietf.org
> > Cc: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: [Fecframe] AD review:
> draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have performed AD Review on
> draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04.
> >
> > -- Technical and/or process concerns:
> >
> > 1) please check id-nits. There are some reported problems with
> > references, and example addresses.
> >
> > 2) Why is this document being requested to be published as
> > Experimental? Is there a lack of WG consensus for this design, or
> the
> > protocols discussed? If so, the concerns that prevent consensus from
> > being reached should be discussed,
> > probably with an explanation in the Introduction that this is an
> > Experimental proposal, not a standard.
> >
> > 3) In section 5.1, provide a reference explaining the UDP port 9875.
> > If this is IANA-assigned, please describe this in the IANA
> > Considerations section.
> >
> > 4) In the last paragraph of 5.1, when a delete has been received,
> the
> > receiver SHOULD no longer use the config info. Why is this not a
> MUST?
> >
> > 5) in 5.2, the assertion is made that using a generic protocol is
> > "under investigation and may be covered by a separate document."
> Where
> > is this under investigation? What document do you think will cover
> > this?
> >
> > 6) It helps IANA if you identify by URL the registry you want
> modified
> > (http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtsp-parameters/rtsp-parameters.xml
> > RTSP/1.0 Option Tags), and include the specific fields that require
> > filling.
> >
> > 7) The IANA considerations refer to section 4.2.2, but there is no
> > section 4.2.2 in this document.
> >
> > Editorial comments:
> > "Independent of what all encoding formats supported by an FEC
> scheme,"
> > should be reworded.
> >
> > section 5 uses a numbering scheme of (i), (b), (c). I suspect the
> > first should be (a).
> >
> > I don't understand the topology pictured in Figure 1. I understand
> the
> > text, but the figure doesn't convey the topology very well.
> >
> > The "simpler method" description in section 5.1.1 could use some
> > English language cleanup.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David Harrington
> > Director, IETF Transport Area
> > ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
> > dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com
> > +1 603 828 1401 (cell)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fecframe mailing list
> > Fecframe@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> Fecframe@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe