[nwcrg] NWCRG meeting@ietf109 follow-up…

Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr> Wed, 18 November 2020 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
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 3DD263A0CD8 for <nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 23:36:33 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 6q7suFe_N7ne for <nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 23:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (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 088C33A0CD7 for <nwcrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 23:36:30 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,486,1596492000"; d="scan'208,217";a="364874693"
Received: from dom38-1-82-236-155-50.fbx.proxad.net (HELO [192.168.0.34]) ([82.236.155.50]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Nov 2020 08:36:28 +0100
From: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A8FA8229-351F-4879-B4F5-A31CD5ABCCB3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Message-Id: <048B9020-DF60-4FB7-A36F-88F7613DBC10@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 08:36:27 +0100
Cc: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>, Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
To: nwcrg@irtf.org, icnrg-chairs@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nwcrg/ScgUfAQiXoho957AymS5Y4xrheg>
Subject: [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 <nwcrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nwcrg>, <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nwcrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nwcrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg>, <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 07:36:33 -0000

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