Re: [nwcrg] NWCRG meeting@ietf109 follow-up…

Many thanks, Dave.

Raymond

> On 18 Nov 2020, at 10:29 PM, David R. Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> wrote:
> 
> Few comments embedded:
> 
> On 18 Nov 2020, at 2:36, 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.
>> ————
> No objection but a potentially good research connection is the recent work by Mike Luby and John Byers published at this year’s UCN conference, which might connect well with using BATS in an experimental setting to validate their coding-centric ICN architecture. Coding folks should definitely read the paper: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3405656.3418710
> 
>> 
>> 
>> ##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?
>> ————
> Yes for my part. Please also check with Dirk.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> ##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.
>> 
> I suspect it’s likely to be a better home since for me the only researchy aspects (as opposed to engineering questions) are related to congestion control, which we are going to continue to noodle on in NWCRG
> 
>> 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
> 
> DaveO
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nwcrg mailing list
> nwcrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg