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

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Fri, 20 January 2012 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@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 8DE5021F856F for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:46:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ulm41KUMdYVF for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:46:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617E521F85A7 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:46:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; l=3808; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1327081563; x=1328291163; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=ejl3NmmHK+QTk2/zgNg8H++0liqu5e6Dp4nLetnY4dI=; b=IlUTtN8JNbBLykOTrgAmD3sgof7PCy+3xJraob48+3SUwgegAzVOonfM YIEH2SO4qlwU2SfVBI7L0X9/Tjl5QhkRGGag47fzmyVGYsXZ2qt9hBGYu UoaezcOGuxaQySxYfAvx7wVkrWGSVGc9lusekum78ggjwHtGqjshywgWk 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As0AACKnGU+tJXHA/2dsb2JhbABAA506kE+BBYFyAQEBAwESAR1OBwQCAQgRAwEBAQsGFwEGASAlCQgBAQQBEggah1qaJQGeO4kFgj5jBIgJM5deh2k
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,543,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="52713453"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2012 17:46:03 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com [72.163.62.138]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0KHk2fH001500; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:46:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:46:02 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:46:01 -0600
Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0729E347@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABFReBpNn0epBEWQTmDQ6AY1WY9yWEX7RPnD+icSnajmyT+EvA@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf rtp-raptor
Thread-Index: Acya/jg/ivCzgIDXQKW0uleKt8N1SA8nSD9w
References: <E50A988001D34452A247B37F8108B2CC@davidPC> <CABFReBpNn0epBEWQTmDQ6AY1WY9yWEX7RPnD+icSnajmyT+EvA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: <gjshep@gmail.com>, <fecframe@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2012 17:46:02.0766 (UTC) FILETIME=[609C4AE0:01CCD79B]
Subject: Re: [Fecframe] IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf rtp-raptor
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, 20 Jan 2012 17:46:04 -0000

Informational is fine.

Cheers,
Rajiv

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 10:30 AM
> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); fecframe@ietf.org
> 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 <ietfdbh@comcast.net>;
> Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:23 AM
> Subject: IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf rtp-raptor
> To: gjshep@gmail.com
> Cc: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling@tools.ietf.org,
> draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor@tools.ietf.org
> 
> 
> 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 ietf-types@iana.org 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
> ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
> dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com
> +1 603 828 1401 (cell)