Re: [Fecframe] [IANA #394228] RE: Last Call:<draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements-08.txt> (Session DescriptionProtocol (SDP) Elements for FEC Framework) to Proposed Standard

["David Harrington" <[e-mail]>]

Hi fecframe, 

I didn't like this much when I did my AD review and I still don't.
I think this puts tremendous load on IANA to do this for us
automatically for every current and future registration.
Can we please design a different approach to FEC registration.
I think there must be a simpler manner to do this.

TSVDIR, can you suggest a better approach for this?

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
[e-mail] (preferred for ietf)
[e-mail]
[phone] (cell)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Amanda Baber via RT
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 8:53 PM
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [IANA #394228] RE: Last 
> Call:<draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements-08.txt> (Session 
> DescriptionProtocol (SDP) Elements for FEC Framework) to 
> Proposed Standard
> 
> Hi Ali,
> 
> Just to make sure we understand what you're asking for: you 
> want this document to modify the registration procedures for 
> the proto registry to be modified so that for every current 
> and future registration -- RTP/AVP, vat, TCP, et al. -- IANA 
> would also automatically register FEC/RTP/AVP, FEC/vat, 
> FEC/TCP, and so on?
> 
> This sounds like a decision for the ADs. We're able do this 
> -- we'd just  have to insert a note in the registry 
> instructing ourselves to do it -- but we can't think of any 
> other registries that behave this way. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Amanda
> IANA
> 
> On Thu Sep 23 19:55:01 2010, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi Amanda,
> > 
> > We cleared the earlier issues with this draft. However, during the
> >    IESG review something came up. This is about section 4.1. In
> >    addition to registering UDP/FEC, we also need several other
> >    registrations for FEC/<proto> for the proto's listed in the SDP
> >    registry. I wonder how we can do this effectively. A shortcut
> >    maybe?
> > 
> > I am probably pushing the limit here. But I wonder whether we
could
> >    define something here so that when a new proto is 
> registered in the
> >    future, FEC/<proto> can also be automatically registered based
on
> >    this draft.
> > 
> > I am about to revise this draft. I would appreciate if you 
> could tell
> >    me what I should put in section 8.1 regarding the above.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance.
> > 
> > -acbegen
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Amanda Baber via RT [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 3:05 PM
> > > Cc: Ali C. Begen (abegen); [e-mail];
> >    [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [IANA #386944] Last Call: <draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-
> >    elements-08.txt> (Session Description Protocol (SDP) Elements
for
> > > FEC Framework) to Proposed Standard
> > >
> > > IESG:
> > >
> > > IANA has reviewed 
> draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements-08.txt, which is 
> > > currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:
> > >
> > > IANA has questions about this document.
> > >
> > > IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, 
> there are two 
> > > IANA Actions that need to be completed.
> > >
> > > First, in the proto type subregistry of the Session Description
> >    Protocol
> > > (SDP) Parameters located at:
> > >
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters
> > >
> > > a single new value is to be registered:
> > >
> > > Type SDP Name Reference
> > > ----- ---------- -----------
> > > proto UDP/FEC [RFC-to-be]
> > >
> > > Second, in one of the att-field subregistries of the Session
> >    Description
> > > Protocol (SDP) Parameters located at:
> > >
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters
> > >
> > > three new attribute names are to be added as follows:
> > >
> > > SDP Attribute ("att-field"):
> > > Attribute name: fec-source-flow
> > > Long form: Pointer to FEC Source Flow Type of name: 
> att-field Type 
> > > of attribute: Media level Subject to charset: No
> > > Purpose: Provide parameters for an FEC source flow
> > > Reference: [RFC-to-be]
> > > Values: See [RFC-to-be]
> > >
> > > SDP Attribute ("att-field"):
> > > Attribute name: fec-repair-flow
> > > Long form: Pointer to FEC Repair Flow Type of name: 
> att-field Type 
> > > of attribute: Media level Subject to charset: No
> > > Purpose: Provide parameters for an FEC repair flow
> > > Reference: [RFC-to-be]
> > > Values: See [RFC-to-be]
> > >
> > > SDP Attribute ("att-field"):
> > > Attribute name: repair-window
> > > Long form: Pointer to FEC Repair Window Type of name: 
> att-field Type 
> > > of attribute: Media level Subject to charset: No
> > > Purpose: Indicate the size of the repair window
> > > Reference: [RFC-to-be]
> > > Values: See [RFC-to-be]
> > >
> > > IANA has a question about these registrations. There are four
att-
> >    field
> > > registries: one for session level attributes, one for both
session
> >    and
> > > media level attributes, one for media level attributes 
> only, one for 
> > > source level, and a final one for attributes for unknown levels.
> >    Which
> > > of these subregistries are these three attribute names to be
added
> >    to?
> > >
> > > After clarification, IANA understands that these are the only
> >    actions
> > > required upon approval of the document.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Amanda Baber
> > > IANA
> > >
> > > On Fri Aug 27 15:50:26 2010, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The IESG has received a request from the FEC Framework WG
> >    (fecframe) to
> > > > consider the following document:
> > > > - 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Elements for FEC 
> Framework'
> > > >   <draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements-08.txt> as a 
> Proposed Standard
> > > >
> > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> >    solicits
> > > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive 
> comments to
> >    the
> > > > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2010-09-10. 
> Exceptionally, comments
> >    may be
> > > > sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please 
> retain the 
> > > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> > > >
> > > > The file can be obtained via
> > > > 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements/
> > > >
> > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via 
> > > > 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No IPR declarations were found that appear related to this
I-D.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>