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

[Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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