Re: [Rmt] AD comments on draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-04

Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Sat, 12 July 2008 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rmt-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rmt-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rmt-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC303A6892; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
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 C3E123A6782 for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 9IzOsTi4igxN for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:58:24 -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 BDFFA3A6950 for <rmt@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:58:24 -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+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id m6CMLLst013810; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:21:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.202] ([132.250.218.64]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id M2008071218212108275 ; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:21:21 -0400
Message-Id: <C863A884-5184-4DD7-A7D9-4379CB492DE1@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
From: Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
To: Mark Watson <mark@digitalfountain.com>
In-Reply-To: <C49E6CB3.2C2AA%mark@digitalfountain.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:21:03 -0400
References: <C49E6CB3.2C2AA%mark@digitalfountain.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, rmt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rmt] AD comments on draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-04
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: rmt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rmt-bounces@ietf.org

Thanks Mark!


Brian Adamson
adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil




On Jul 12, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Mark Watson wrote:

> I propose to address item 3 by changing the SHOULDs to MUSTs. The  
> other
> comments all seem fine to me and I will submit an update shortly.
>
> ...Mark
>
>
> On 4/18/08 2:52 AM, "Magnus Westerlund" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have made my AD review of the document and have the following  
>> comments.
>>
>> 1. Obsolete information in header, abstract and introduction. If I
>> understand this correctly this document will replace RFC 3695 and  
>> parts
>> of RFC 3452 that wasn't included in the already obsoleted one.
>>
>> 2. There is a missing "." in the last sentence of section 1.
>>
>> 3. Section 3.2.2.2:
>>
>> "   The "Reserved" field in the Encoded FEC Object Transmission
>>    Information SHOULD be set to zero by senders and its value  
>> SHOULD be
>>    ignored by receivers."
>>
>> Using the definition of SHOULD here makes it pretty difficult to use
>> this field in the future. I normally recommends that at least  
>> setting it
>> needs to be MUST and usually also the ignore on receiver. So that  
>> if one
>> deploys a new spec that uses these bits would not throw up on them.  
>> As I
>> am uncertain how widely deployed this definition already is I only  
>> ask
>> the WG to consider if this should be changed or not.
>>
>> 4. Section 5.3:
>>
>> I think there needs to be an additional sentence her to specify  
>> that if
>> a instance is not using the algorithm it needs to specify what it  
>> uses.
>>
>> 5. Section 9. I think we need to move the registry rules forward from
>> the going to be obsoleted RFCs 3695 and 3452. Thus please include the
>> registry rules in this section and request that IANA changes the
>> pointers for the rules to this doc.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Magnus Westerlund
>>
>> IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
>> Färögatan 6                | Fax   +46 8 7575550
>> S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> Rmt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
>

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