Re: [Rmt] About Flute-revised open points

brian.adamson@nrl.navy.mil Thu, 07 April 2011 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.adamson@nrl.navy.mil>
X-Original-To: rmt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680F128C13B for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id afcM5xjgGSO3 for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20FF28C130 for <rmt@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id p37FJQb5022121; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:19:27 -0400
Received: from macsimus.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.151]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id M2011040711192520340 ; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:19:25 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-55--387716580"
From: brian.adamson@nrl.navy.mil
In-Reply-To: <4D94974B.7080101@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:18:34 -0400
Message-Id: <0D33217F-D80C-410A-B4C5-73B284C9339F@nrl.navy.mil>
References: <4D93955C.8010407@inrialpes.fr> <4D94974B.7080101@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: rmt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rmt] About Flute-revised open points
X-BeenThere: rmt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Reliable Multicast Transport <rmt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt>, <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt>
List-Post: <mailto:rmt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt>, <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:17:58 -0000

I agree with Magnus here.    I hope that Rod can review Vincent's historical summary of the issues and provide consensus or comments to help us resolve this.  

Additionally, here is a link to the message that summarizes the backwards incompatibility issues identified by Dave Harrington's AD review of FLUTE:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt/current/msg01434.html




best regards,


Brian Adamson
brian.adamson@nrl.navy.mil





On Mar 31, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think this is a good example of what I expect in this discussion. I
> think that a number of the changes has good reasons to their changes and
> that we are not likely to reverse the WG documents text. For the record
> I don't really remember the reasons for the designs in this schema and
> what the underlying 3GPP reasons are.
> 
> I have no rapid need for an updated flute so I am willing to let this
> discussion go on for a while. Especially letting people try to dig up
> any more motivations. But the fact is that the WG spent 5+ years in
> producing this document. There are reasons why it looks like it does.
> Reversing that decision at the last minute seems dangerous and likely to
> cause more issues than actually bumping the version number.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus

Everybody,

A follow-up to our long discussion during the meeting:

1- Concerning Flute version, the email that convinced
   me of the necessity to move to version 2 is the
   following one, from Mike, sent on Feb 7, 2011:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt/current/msg01511.html

2- Concerning XML extensibility, after searching a little
   bit better in my archives, I finally found the initial reasons.
   See the following 3 emails (from June 2005):

* The initial email (from Rod) explaining why 3GPP proposed
   another schema:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt/current/msg00404.html

* The answer from Magnus, with the 3GPP schema:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt/current/msg00477.html

* Finally Rod's promise (yes!!!) to include this schema:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt/current/msg00482.html

That's for the history. The question now is what do we want
to do?

 Vincent

> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> Rmt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
> 

> -- 
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> Rmt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
>