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

Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr> Fri, 27 November 2020 14:31 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 9F4963A0D79 for <nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 06:31:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 sCtozPvcjvOJ for <nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 06:31:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (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 5D83D3A0D6F for <nwcrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 06:31:38 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,374,1599516000"; d="scan'208,217";a="479864284"
Received: from dom38-1-82-236-155-50.fbx.proxad.net (HELO [192.168.0.34]) ([82.236.155.50]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Nov 2020 15:31:02 +0100
From: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <D3F0CB1D-1B31-480E-8089-EF70A53A08B5@inria.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B3554012-1960-444C-A2A8-56D9F1C26235"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 15:31:01 +0100
In-Reply-To: <048B9020-DF60-4FB7-A36F-88F7613DBC10@inria.fr>
Cc: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>, Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
To: nwcrg@irtf.org, icnrg-chairs@ietf.org
References: <048B9020-DF60-4FB7-A36F-88F7613DBC10@inria.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nwcrg/yUBkh3K3m9gjH6vyRzoPbARiLz0>
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 <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: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:31:41 -0000

Dear all,

Following our email from last week and feedback received on the list:

- we adopt BATS I-D as RG Item document.
	Status has been changed accordingly in the datatracker. 
	@authors: please, next time you submit an update, change the name for: draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats-code-00

- about draft-matsuzono-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-req:
	Given ICNRG approval, once the I-D is updated to take into account Vincent’s feedback, we will hand the I-D to IRSG.
	@authors: we’re waiting for an update

Thank you.

Regards,

   Marie-José and Vincent

> Le 18 nov. 2020 à 08:36, Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr> a écrit :
> 
> 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