IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] clarification on HE-MIF algorithm

Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com> Tue, 24 November 2015 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <denghui02@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E14B1B2FDB for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 03:30:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 be3WAaTH0rTH for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 03:30:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from COL004-OMC1S6.hotmail.com (col004-omc1s6.hotmail.com [65.55.34.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 778751B2FDA for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 03:30:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from COL125-W3 ([65.55.34.7]) by COL004-OMC1S6.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 03:30:08 -0800
X-TMN: [pSxNS+agse3zOhwfQuDqIBQ5RnMMKzPCH4ZYIOh2YgM=]
X-Originating-Email: [denghui02@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <COL125-W36F091E16E02122788383B1060@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_ed3a4cd6-0df0-4341-8416-045ddb9ad074_"
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>, "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:30:08 +0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR03MB412D257127022C820331E0BA3070@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAM+vMETqmJSEdPzBUqacH8a1fMwvxeMwew1vJG5g7sxMHRfDwA@mail.gmail.com>, <BY2PR03MB412D257127022C820331E0BA3070@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2015 11:30:08.0358 (UTC) FILETIME=[791BC060:01D126AB]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/WubScCCiXnDx1UgT3lySF-hTRPk>
Cc: Margaret Cullen <mrcullen42@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mif] clarification on HE-MIF algorithm
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:30:13 -0000

the minutes has been updated, hope that is more clear
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/minutes/minutes-94-mif
 
DENG Hui 
 
> From: dthaler@microsoft.com
> To: phdgang@gmail.com; mif@ietf.org
> CC: mrcullen42@gmail.com; denghui02@hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: [mif] clarification on HE-MIF algorithm
> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:44:03 +0000
> 
> The grammar in the minutes looks bad.  What I said was:
> 
> "RFC 6555 does not specify a mandatory algorithm, only requirements for algorithms,
> and an example algorithm.  Does this draft try to make a particular algorithm mandatory?"
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GangChen [mailto:phdgang@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 1:19 AM
> To: mif@ietf.org; Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
> Cc: Margaret Cullen <mrcullen42@gmail.com>; Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com>
> Subject: [mif] clarification on HE-MIF algorithm
> 
> wg,
> 
> I would like to follow the meeting minutes to clarify a question from the discussion.
> 
> "
>   DT - Clarifying question - base happy happy eyeballs spec has two
>   algos, none of them mandatory no mandatory algorithm Does this
>   specify a mandatory algo?
> "
> 
> The HE-MIF doesn't specify mandatory algorithm.
> Basically, HE-MIF is doing a similar way with RFC6555.
> The draft describes step-wise requirements for any candidate algorithm.
> 
> BRs
> 
> Gang
> 
> 2015-11-22 8:40 GMT+08:00, Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com>:
> > Hello all
> >
> > Appreciate Ian Farrer and Ted Lemon kindly help for minutes Also 
> > Mikael Abrahamsson for Jabber
> >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.i
> > etf.org%2fproceedings%2f94%2fminutes%2fminutes-94-mif&data=01%7c01%7cd
> > thaler%40microsoft.com%7c6bd2810ca4334051554508d2f3e718cb%7c72f988bf86
> > f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=%2bRV%2fK%2fz8QpfT2hibsHwfmnZe%2fItdr
> > sF6vlPXxJs3oso%3d
> >
> > Please feel free to let chairs know whether you have some revision
> >
> > thanks a lot
> >
> > DENG Hui
> >

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email