[Fecframe] Fwd: request for pub draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-04
Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Fri, 11 March 2011 12:13 UTC
Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0FDF3A692C for <fecframe@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:13:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6XY2kjHi6xFX for <fecframe@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:13:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CCE3A688C for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:13:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so3190421iwl.31 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:14:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RbYRhsy1R329pUqHL6XVUkI3aACr0nKUKYgNtM6dTIs=; b=O45Z27h5Z/htkYafq9VjMT/ajjimCMqQDPpfqonGiy97Cetrjjte377xtMRDAP8xAR DNcD4p4lCjNShHTzS+/RcO5Sywg9vpiqEUGp9VMe4ecckfPAEJFvc+lvSZ6eK5qJOEXR 2o2B7XSvQNjqAfCCQaE+IWdP/yqQawXche2a4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=o8knqij/KGxdGp9VNsDD2xL/R3Ruq9sB6g8XXUWEIJYxI/EBoQp99CiE2pqyHBGvHV pkxLH4To+TMhG4nOJSzZLp+ykgukjaCLavUEiEahmYVNmV4SFzF6eoMYpEmtvLlmpPVG rnH9YQCFPUzPnEpqvvcLTaamn4reQVS4irRy8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.177.69 with SMTP id bh5mr7130036ibb.62.1299845671076; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:14:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.144.75 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:14:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Ljwwx+VpaZ9RbibXtht-wqFzGDk4CJ3xEdvVm@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Ljwwx+VpaZ9RbibXtht-wqFzGDk4CJ3xEdvVm@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:14:31 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikmtUU6vonJvSBBOhpB7U_=sYToJMzJetyRS-aY@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
To: fecframe@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [Fecframe] Fwd: request for pub draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-04
X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework <fecframe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 11 Mar 2011 12:13:13 -0000
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 AM Subject: request for pub draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-04 To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net> *, The document draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-04 is now ready for publication. Please see the Document Shepherd Write-up below. If this meets your approval I will send this along to the secretary and cc the WG. Thanks, Greg --- Document Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-raptor-04 as per RFC 4858, template dated September 17, 2008 (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? I, Greg Shepherd as the document shepherd have personally reviewed this document and believe it to be ready for forwarding to the IESG. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had adequate review both from within and from outside the FECFrame working group. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? There are no concerns regarding the need for additional expanded review. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no specific concerns with this document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is solid WG consensus for this document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) There is no discontent. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Only three miscellaneous warnings which can be addressed with editor's notes: == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add the disclaimer? (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? -- The document date (December 9, 2010) is 32 days in the past. Is this intentional? (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Normative and informative references are split with one reference to draft that is currently in the editor's queue. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Section 12 describes the FEC Encoding ID values for registration consistent with the document. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? The xml code validates correctly (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document describes Full-Specified Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes for the Raptor and RaptorQ codes and their application to reliable delivery of media streams in the context of FEC Framework. Working Group Summary There were no seriously contentious issues during the WG process. Document Quality The Working Group feedback covered both the quality of the document itself as well as the technical issues with the content of the document. Personal Document Shepherd - Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Responsible Area Director - David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
- [Fecframe] Fwd: request for pub draft-ietf-fecfra… Greg Shepherd