[Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs

David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Mon, 05 March 2012 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
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 94F0821F85D1 for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:59:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.364, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 dYZoGQTsiBHr for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD4021F85C5 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id htQy1i0071ZXKqc56uzt9E; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:59:53 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.33] ([71.233.85.150]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id huzs1i0123Ecudz3huzsTh; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:59:53 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:59:50 -0500
From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: <fecframe@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CB7A7755.1CA21%ietfdbh@comcast.net>
Thread-Topic: fecframe WGLCs
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3413800792_30200244"
Subject: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs
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: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:59:58 -0000

Hi,

There are multiple fecframe WGLCs running for FEC schemes.

The charter is fairly clear:
"The FECFrame WG may develop new FEC schemes if necessary to provide
substantial performance gains for the intended applications. However
the acceptance of any FEC scheme will require multiple, prior, detailed
reviews of the FEC code by independent experts from both the IETF and
the broader community, since it is likely that the IETF working group
will not include a large enough number of suitable experts in its
working set. If these reviews are positive, then Working Group
acceptance of an FEC scheme work item still needs the approval of the
responsible Area Director. "

For the WGLC, I would like more than just a "sure I support this" email.

I would like a "I have reviewed the text in this document, I have reviewed
the code in this document, and this scheme significantly improves
performance for a use case that is important to me, which is <Š>. Therefore,
I support publication of this document."

If you have implemented or deployed this specification, and found no
problems with the specification, or plan to implement or deploy this scheme,
stating that would also be helpful.

Please convince me that these documents are ready for IESG Review and
deserve to be published as RFCs that are IETF standards because they address
real-world problems.

Thanks,
--
David Harrington
Director, Transport Area
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Ietfdbh@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401