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

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Tue, 21 February 2012 22:45 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 8049911E80DC for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:45:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.591, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ZCTGlRHDYtEt for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6294721F87D4 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:45:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; l=6799; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329864318; x=1331073918; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=FSW1Oc8B91APUWK6tiITXzn9EW+UpCxRiKggQTTYma4=; b=PGnrPbmNcYAtNON5ew+3dbfWJIneB/D9g6V1VNt7kEdcRZjIsjVeYA1G c6QuN1B5JL3Zc2S60rOAvpYMFbrULLjOzqVLq3WTuu8Ux2p5DvbAqxYhk B7JTxGldso9VetL2psZxTpBOT0H1vGnJPnUEEt7/vRaXlhvQNtOb/SPZw g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AowAAB8eRE+tJV2a/2dsb2JhbABAA6BWkWyBB4FzAQEBBAEBAQ8BHQo0FwQCAQgOAwMBAQEBCgYXAQYBIAYfCQgBAQQBEggah2eZHgGfFASIfIJ6AwkDBAcJDIROAwwKBgqCQGMEiE+YAId1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,460,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="60748362"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Feb 2012 22:45:18 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com [72.163.62.138]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1LMjHg8020420; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:45:17 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); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:45:17 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:45:16 -0600
Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0778D2D6@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB6906FB.13C41%ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] IESG Eval followup: config-signaling anf rtp-raptor
Thread-Index: AczwngwEjAJ6P3cYT4S3fA4F56keLgARlBtw
References: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0729E347@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <CB6906FB.13C41%ietfdbh@comcast.net>
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, "Greg Shepherd" <gjshep@gmail.com>, <fecframe@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2012 22:45:17.0797 (UTC) FILETIME=[7BDC9950:01CCF0EA]
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: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:45:19 -0000

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:ietfdbh@comcast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:38 AM
> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Greg Shepherd; fecframe@ietf.org
> 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)
> Ietfdbh@comcast.net
> +1-603-828-1401
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/20/12 12:46 PM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
> >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)
> >_______________________________________________
> >Fecframe mailing list
> >Fecframe@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
>