IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com> Tue, 09 June 2020 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <liyizhou@huawei.com>
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 C36AB3A0E1D for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 A7Az7g3cQCEK for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2216D3A0D6C for <loops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml725-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id D81C557D0C1BF3936FAB for <loops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:49:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) by lhreml725-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.76) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:49:18 +0100
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:49:15 +0800
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:49:15 +0800
From: Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: "loops@ietf.org" <loops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [LOOPS] Results of the LOOPS side meeting May 2020
Thread-Index: AQHWOgVxQq/LO9mduU2EPnpoRG0/ZKjIH8VwgAZNiICAAaT/QA==
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 09:49:15 +0000
Message-ID: <210056d2a0ea4033ac0f27be566fa794@huawei.com>
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> <891CCF63-2013-4B7B-B4F6-CDB1F2D69B04@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <891CCF63-2013-4B7B-B4F6-CDB1F2D69B04@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.74.115]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/loops/_ep3zWGCrXo579X2l2LYH4rbZds>
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: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 09:49:30 -0000

That looks good to me.
Thanks.

Rgds,
Yizhou

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@tzi.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 12:42 AM
To: Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com>
Cc: loops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [LOOPS] Results of the LOOPS side meeting May 2020

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