Re: [Fecframe] IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf rtp-raptor

[David Harrington <[e-mail]>]

Thank you. I'll follow-up.

--
David Harrington
Director, Transport Area
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[e-mail]
[phone]





On 2/21/12 5:45 PM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi David,
>
>I have updated the document in accordance with the comments received so
>far, and submitted the -07 version for us to make progress.
>	
>1. Adrian Farrel: Comment (2011-11-03)::= Updated the abstract and
>Introduction section.
>2. Gonzalo Camarillo: Comment (2011-11-03)::= Removed the normative
>language.
>3. Jari Arkko: Comment (2011-11-03) ::= Corrected the sections
>referencing and updated the Introduction
>4. Ron Bonica: Discuss (2011-11-02) ::= Removed the reference to that
>expired draft.
>5. Russ Housley: Comment (2011-11-03)::= All accepted. Updated the
>relevant text.
>6. Stephen Farrell: Comment (2011-11-01::= Cryptography meant
>encryption. Removed it as well as GDOI, and mentioned PGP.
>7. Wesley Eddy: Discuss (2011-10-26) ::= Changed to Informational.
>8. Pete Resnick: Discuss (2011-11-02) ::= Changed to Informational.
>9. Robert Sparks: Discuss (2011-11-02)::=1. Added a para in section 5.1
>to clarify this. 2. Not a complete list.
>10. Robert Sparks: Comment (2011-11-02)::= Changed to Informational.
>11. Sean Turner: Discuss (2011-11-02)::= Yes. Added PGP preference.
>12. Sean Turner: Comment (2011-11-02)::= Yes, meant to say encryption.
>Removed cryptography and references to GDOI altogether.
>
>Cheers,
>Rajiv
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Harrington [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:38 AM
>> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Greg Shepherd; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf
>rtp-raptor
>> 
>> Hi Rajiv,
>> 
>> Can you get a new revision published as Informational please?
>> 
>> Here is an issue you really need to address in the document:
>> "To make this actionable I suggest you work out very clearly what the
>> purpose of
>> the document is and capture that both in the Abstract and the
>> Introduction. It
>> would also help if you clearly defined what *you* mean by a signaling
>> protocol
>> because people at different layers of the stack have very different
>> understandings of the term."
>> 
>> There are a number of other discusses that need to be addressed.
>> 
>> If you get a revision to me by the end of February, I can run it
>through
>> the system again and hopefully get it into the RFC Editor before I
>step
>> down as AD in March. You really don't want to start over with a new
>AD.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> --
>> David Harrington
>> Director, Transport Area
>> Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
>> [e-mail]
>> [phone]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/20/12 12:46 PM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> >Informational is fine.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >Rajiv
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 10:30 AM
>> >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); [e-mail]
>> >> Subject: Fwd: IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf rtp-raptor
>> >>
>> >> *,
>> >>
>> >> There are a few things holding up the config-sig draft, but the one
>we
>> >> need to help with is:
>> >>
>> >> MUST this doc progress as experimental, or is there WG consensus to
>> >> move it to informational?
>> >>
>> >> Please reply promptly to the list.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!,
>> >> Greg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> From: David Harrington <[e-mail]>
>> >> Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:23 AM
>> >> Subject: IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf rtp-raptor
>> >> To: [e-mail]
>> >> Cc: [e-mail],
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> The IESG reviewed the config signaling and rtp-raptor drafts.
>> >> We have work to do.
>> >>
>> >> config-signaling:
>> >> 1) Can we publish this as Informational?
>> >>        Is that a problem for any cross-SDO work?
>> >>        If this is published as Informational, then compliance is no
>> >> longer appropriate - you don't comply to an Informational document.
>so
>> >> the RFC2119 keywords should disappear.
>> >>
>> >> 2) Ask the WG which version of GDOI is supposed to be used? See
>Sean's
>> >> Comments.
>> >>
>> >> 3) The document needs a good rewrite, especialy the Abstract and
>> >> Introduction. There are Discusses and Comments from many that the
>> >> document doesn't describe its purpose. This must be clairified.
>> >>
>> >> 4) There are Discusses and Comments from multiple ADs that must be
>> >> addressed:
>> >> Ron: just remove the reference; I don't know if you want to carry
>any
>> >> information from that expired mboned doc into this doc.
>> >> Adrian: clarify what is considered a signaling protocol in this doc
>> >> Gonzalo: no RFC2119 keywords in the Introduction (so normative text
>> >> must be moved)
>> >> Jari: internal references (are you using xml2rfc? they have ways to
>> >> keep that in sync for you)
>> >>        clarify how you expect this to be used re: SDP, XML, etc.
>> >> Russ: Gen-ART review
>> >> Sean: "MAY encrypt"
>> >>        MUST is for implementers - see RFC 3365 - unless this is
>> >> Informational.
>> >>        GDOI - explain how to use this. Clarify which version.
>> >> Stephen: "MAY encrypt" => "SHOULD encrypt using PGP or CMS"?
>> >>        GDOI - how to use to manage keys?
>> >> Pete: If Informational, then you can ignore his comment; If
>> >> Experimental, then describe the experiment.
>> >> Robert: new versus copied requirements; point to the existing rules
>> >> rather than copying them here.
>> >>        The #2 comment is critical - are implementers supposed to
>> >> choose from one of these protocols
>> >>        (i.e., these are the only ones allowed in a compliant
>> >> Experimental implementation?)
>> >>
>> >> rpt-raptor:
>> >> 1) A registration request must be sent to [e-mail] to
>> >> register the types, per section 5.1 of RFC 4288. The registration
>> >> template needs to be filled in
>> >>
>> >> 2) There are discusses from Sean, Pete, Robert and Stephen that
>must
>> >> be addressed, and Comments from Russ (the Gen-ART review) that
>should
>> >> be addressed in a Revised ID. I think the usage of RFC2119 keywords
>is
>> >> acceptable, but might be improved. Please read and **consider**
>Pete's
>> >> comments on RFC2119 usage, and then do what you think is right.
>> >>
>> >> Please get these Revised IDs done asap so I can send them off to
>the
>> >> RFC Editor.
>> >>
>> >> David Harrington
>> >> Director, IETF Transport Area
>> >> [e-mail] (preferred for ietf)
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> [phone] (cell)
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Fecframe mailing list
>> >[e-mail]
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
>> 
>