IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [LOOPS] Results of the LOOPS side meeting May 2020

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 08 June 2020 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: loops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: loops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C443A0CFB for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 09:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nFWy5RDVN5dJ for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 09:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A167A3A0D34 for <loops@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 09:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.117] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49gfD75PzhzyWX; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:41:59 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <b5674ad0ed6e4974a5c2b7c51125cdab@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 18:41:59 +0200
Cc: "loops@ietf.org" <loops@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 613327319.543337-b75c2f9dd8cf7c650f3f760de121cb44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <891CCF63-2013-4B7B-B4F6-CDB1F2D69B04@tzi.org>
References: <614826114.20890951590412654399.JavaMail.nobody@rln2rmd101.webex.com> <D59C1BF0-443D-4068-ADCF-D501C24F0AA6@tzi.org> <6967F8C0-6A4E-4C6B-AA49-B2652DB616A3@tzi.org> <1F57EAE7-DA4F-4E09-9991-01DAD588851C@tzi.org> <b5674ad0ed6e4974a5c2b7c51125cdab@huawei.com>
To: Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/loops/DYncScmzQkU05CWmssX9Ka1iGAk>
Subject: Re: [LOOPS] Results of the LOOPS side meeting May 2020
X-BeenThere: loops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Local Optimizations on Path Segments <loops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/loops>, <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/loops/>
List-Post: <mailto:loops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/loops>, <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:42:05 -0000

Hi Yizhou:

> On 2020-06-04, at 10:50, Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> From last discussion, I think LOOPS would provide the flexibility to allow the negotiation of what FEC to be used.
> 
> So in the charter proposal, 
> "at least one FEC scheme will be included in order to exercise the protocol mechanisms. "
> 
> We can add text like,
> Channel to allow FEC scheme negotiation is also to be defined?

I changed the wording as follows:

   retransmission, but at least one FEC scheme will be included in
-  order to exercise the protocol mechanisms.
+  order to exercise the protocol mechanisms for selecting FEC and a
+  specific FEC scheme.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email