From nobody Wed Nov 18 03:35:34 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C88D3A17CE for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 03:35:32 -0800 (PST) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 2xm7PcuqdqTj for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 03:35:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-taastrup.gigahost.dk (mailout-taastrup.gigahost.dk [46.183.139.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D1833A17F6 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 03:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout.gigahost.dk (mailout.gigahost.dk [89.186.169.112]) by mailout-taastrup.gigahost.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A4A1890653 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gigahost.dk (smtp.gigahost.dk [89.186.169.109]) by mailout.gigahost.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B4D780224 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.gigahost.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A4C469580001; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:35:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Screener-Id: f8b5956341cafa01bc0fc2c7b7d4a245e1dff3de Received: from [192.168.1.184] (D4709446.rev.sefiber.dk [212.112.148.70]) by smtp.gigahost.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AF3E9120FE2 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:35:27 +0000 (UTC) To: nwcrg@irtf.org References: <048B9020-DF60-4FB7-A36F-88F7613DBC10@inria.fr> From: "Morten V. Pedersen" Message-ID: <272e76a4-2089-252d-085a-b15110179242@steinwurf.com> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 12:35:26 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <048B9020-DF60-4FB7-A36F-88F7613DBC10@inria.fr> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9ECF8A19CBA9DBE717B1F684" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [nwcrg] =?utf-8?q?NWCRG_meeting=40ietf109_follow-up=E2=80=A6?= X-BeenThere: nwcrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Network Coding Research Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:35:33 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------9ECF8A19CBA9DBE717B1F684 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear all, Since there was no time for questions yesterday feel free to also put you questions to the repair patterns talk here - and I'll do my best to answer. You can find some of the motivation behind the talk here: https://www.steinwurf.com/blog/2020-10-30-content-aware-ecc-fec.html Which shows the repair pattern concerns wrt. FEC/ECC coding a video stream. All the best, Morten On 18.11.20 08:36, Vincent Roca wrote: > Dear all, > > Since we run short of time during our meeting yesterday (sorry for > that), here are a few additional items to discuss on the list: > > > *##1  BATS I-D adoption as RG Item* > > Main comment during adoption call (in September) was about the lack of > research perspective, the ID being more a specification IETF document > than an IRTF document. > Authors updated their ID in the -04 version, adding in particular > section 6. « Data Delivery Protocol Considerations ». > NWCRG chairs think it’s a good initiative, but it still lacks the > required depth. Chairs also think It should not be very difficult to > add a more detailed discussion, given the > major academic background and reputation of the team, given the > practical experience gained by the team during field experiments. > Adding this discussion would highlight the way BATS codes can answer > some of these challenges. > > Chairs believe we have a small but sufficient set of reviewers > (although small, 2-3 people) for adoption, and since the ID is already > in good shape, finishing the NWCRG > work mid-2021 seems feasible. > > ———— > Suggestion: adopt it as RG Item document. > > *@all:* raise your hand if you object by next week. > ———— > > > *##2  NC for CCN/NDN: Requirements and Challenges* > > The NWCRG chairs think the ID is almost ready for IRSG, it’s just a > matter of revising the ID to reflect yesterday’s comments (no serious > issue was found). > > ———— > *@ICNRG chairs:* Do you agree? > ———— > > > *##3   About « Coding for QUIC » and « RLC Forward Erasure Correction > (FEC) Schemes for QUIC »  I-Ds > * > No decision has been taken by authors regarding the strategy: keep it > as NWCRG informational document, or move them to QUIC IETF WG. > The work on multipath QUIC could justify moving IDs there. > > Authors will determine a strategy by IETF110. > > > *##4  « Tetrys, an On-the-Fly Network Coding protocol » > * > @Authors: what do you want/intend to do? > > > Cheers, > >    Marie-Jose and Vincent > > _______________________________________________ > nwcrg mailing list > nwcrg@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg --------------9ECF8A19CBA9DBE717B1F684 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear all,
Since there was no time for questions yesterday feel free to also put you questions to the repair patterns talk here - and I'll do my best to answer.

You can find some of the motivation behind the talk here:
https://www.steinwurf.com/blog/2020-10-30-content-aware-ecc-fec.html

Which shows the repair pattern concerns wrt. FEC/ECC coding a video stream. 

All the best,
Morten

On 18.11.20 08:36, Vincent Roca wrote:
Dear all,

Since we run short of time during our meeting yesterday (sorry for that), here are a few additional items to discuss on the list:


##1  BATS I-D adoption as RG Item

Main comment during adoption call (in September) was about the lack of research perspective, the ID being more a specification IETF document than an IRTF document.
Authors updated their ID in the -04 version, adding in particular section 6. « Data Delivery Protocol Considerations ».
NWCRG chairs think it’s a good initiative, but it still lacks the required depth. Chairs also think It should not be very difficult to add a more detailed discussion, given the 
major academic background and reputation of the team, given the practical experience gained by the team during field experiments.
Adding this discussion would highlight the way BATS codes can answer some of these challenges.

Chairs believe we have a small but sufficient set of reviewers (although small, 2-3 people) for adoption, and since the ID is already in good shape, finishing the NWCRG 
work mid-2021 seems feasible.

————
Suggestion: adopt it as RG Item document.

@all: raise your hand if you object by next week.
————


##2  NC for CCN/NDN: Requirements and Challenges

The NWCRG chairs think the ID is almost ready for IRSG, it’s just a matter of revising the ID to reflect yesterday’s comments (no serious issue was found).

————
@ICNRG chairs: Do you agree?
————


##3   About « Coding for QUIC » and « RLC Forward Erasure Correction (FEC) Schemes for QUIC »  I-Ds

No decision has been taken by authors regarding the strategy: keep it as NWCRG informational document, or move them to QUIC IETF WG.
The work on multipath QUIC could justify moving IDs there.

Authors will determine a strategy by IETF110.


##4  « Tetrys, an On-the-Fly Network Coding protocol » 

@Authors: what do you want/intend to do?


Cheers,

   Marie-Jose and Vincent

_______________________________________________
nwcrg mailing list
nwcrg@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg
--------------9ECF8A19CBA9DBE717B1F684--