Re: [Rmt] AD comments on draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-06

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark and the WG,

I think most proposed changes looks fine. I comment on the question
below. And we do need WG input into one question.

Watson, Mark skrev:
> On 4/17/09 7:08 AM, "Magnus Westerlund" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have reviewed the ALC PI and have some comments.
>>
>> 1. If one compare this one with the experimental one they are very
>> similar. At least my expectation would be that a bit more details are
>> actually nailed down on how one should do them to achieve interoperable
>> implementations. For example the choice of congestion control algorithm.
>> I think we only have one that we can really use to satisfy the intended
>> usage of large scale sessions. Why isn't this a required to implement
>> feature?
>>
>> The same thing can be said about normative to implement security
>> features. Yes, here there are choices, but still specify one required to
>> implement should be possible. If you have observant the NORM PI got this
>> comment from the SECdir reviewer. And I think he was right, we should be
>> clear on these.
>>
>> A question is if we need to specify one mandatory to implement FEC
>> encoding?
>>
>> In general I am not against the flexibility the protocol allows for.
>> However, it should be clear what you do need to implement for a
>> base-line implementation.
>>
> 
> If I understand the WG discussion correctly, we should mandate the support
> of WEBRC for Congestion Control. I propose to replace the first sentence of
> section 2.2 (Multiple Rate Congestion Control Building Block) with
> 
> "At a minimum, implementations of ALC MUST support [RFC3738]."
> 
> And reword the following paragraphs appropriately.
> 
> For security, as with NORM, we have text defining 'Baseline secure ALC
> operation'. Do you think we should mandate support for this ?

Yes, I think so. But I definitely would like to get WG input into this
question.

>> 4. There are more references that are not updated. Cases where mechanism
>> are available in IETF draft, like the TESLA solution. Which would impact
>> the reference for example in Section 5, third paragraph.
>>
> 
> I added the TESLA for ALC/NORM draft as a reference and reference from that
> paragraph. Are there others that you saw other than those found by idnits ?

No, not what I can remember.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------