Re: [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised (MulticastNegative-Acknowledgment (NACK) Building Blocks) to Proposed Standard
Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Fri, 18 July 2008 22:06 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 3924B3A68FB; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:06:17 -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 938E33A68E3 for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:06:16 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 m0b5byxe2U6N for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:06:15 -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 91DDC3A68FB for <rmt@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:06:14 -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 m6ILCOct024967; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:12:24 -0400 (EDT)
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 M2008071817122304497 ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:12:23 -0400
Message-Id: <D43BA9CA-964B-446E-AC3D-F97A15DFFDC5@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
From: Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0804140835390.16919@netcore.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:12:24 -0400
References: <20080403140021.9211F28C5C9@core3.amsl.com> <alpine.LRH.1.10.0804071058380.23953@netcore.fi> <p06240808c425883a5645@[132.250.92.151]> <alpine.LRH.1.10.0804140835390.16919@netcore.fi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
Cc: Joe Macker <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil>, rmt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised (MulticastNegative-Acknowledgment (NACK) Building Blocks) to Proposed Standard
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: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: rmt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rmt-bounces@ietf.org
Hello Pekka, The current posted version of the NORM BB draft has removed the discussion of intermediate system/ router assistance as you had suggested. As you may have seen in another email, an IESG reviewer (Dave Ward) has requested: " a discussion about the applicability of network based NAK implosion and/or local retransmitter based optimizations to this building block, and whether or not it would be possible to do this such that it can be added as an afterthought into deployments without changes to senders and/or receivers to better scale them upon increase of topology and/or group-size. " To satisfy this request, I am inclined to re-include some form of this discussion that was omitted in response to your comment. BUT, I think it could be clarified that it would not necessarily be _router_ assistance? And to qualify the discussion more with respect to the pragmatics of deployment, etc ... I think the discussion is merited since it will occur to people reading the document and the "NACK" building block is potentially _compatible_ with such mechanisms, but I agree with you that it is not sufficiently mature and the document should not explicitly _recommend_ anything here other than to discuss the associate points ... What is your opinion on this? I am updating the draft and I wanted to make sure we addressed your concerns if we adjusted the document to re- include some form of this discussion. best regards, Brian Adamson adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil On Apr 14, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Brian Adamson wrote: >> I appreciate your comments here. I plan to issue a new version of >> the draft >> that addresses these to the extent I can. I have some questions >> about your >> concerns with comments in-line below: > > Thanks for your quick response. Below I won't quote all the text if > additional clarification doesn't seem warranted. > >> But this is certainly not a "fully-baked" area. So [router >> assistance] discussion _could_ be removed ... I suppose it will >> persist in the RFC 3941 for historical purposes until there is >> further interest in the area? > > That would be my preference. _______________________________________________ Rmt mailing list Rmt@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
- [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised (… The IESG
- Re: [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revis… Brian Adamson
- Re: [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revis… Pekka Savola
- Re: [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revis… Pekka Savola
- Re: [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revis… Brian Adamson
- Re: [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revis… gmgietf
- Re: [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revis… Brian Adamson
- Re: [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revis… Brian Adamson
- Re: [Rmt] Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revis… Brian Adamson