[Rmt] RMT WG Issues - FEC Basic Schemes, ALC/LCT, FLUTE

[Brian Adamson <[e-mail]>]

All:

Recently a few RMT Working Group issues have arisen:

Most notably, we received this note from the editors:

>> We have <draft-mehta-rmt-flute-sdp-05.txt> in our queue for  
>> publication, and it has the following normative references that are  
>> not yet in our queue:
>> REF1 draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised
>> ID Tracker State: dead
>> REF2 draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised
>> ID Tracker State: dead
>> REF3 draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised
>> ID Tracker State: dead
>> REF4 draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised
>> ID Tracker State: AD Eval -- Revised ID needed
>> Will REF1, REF2, and REF3 be revised and resubmitted?  Or, should  
>> these references be updated?  Should <draft-mehta-rmt-flute- 
>> sdp-05.txt> be removed from the RFC Editor queue?
>> Please let us know how to proceed.
>> Thank you.


So, the FLUTE, ALC, LCT, and FEC Basic Schemes documents need  
attention!  I haven't heard anything recently from the authors here,  
and we need to establish some definitive status and plan on these  
issues.  I don't think this should wait until Dublin.

I think we have an approach to address the security considerations  
issues that have been raised so that these documents can be completed  
and submitted.  Here is the status of the pertinent documents:

1) FEC Basic Schemes - This was submitted for publication, but a few  
comments from our AD (Area Director - Magnus) need to be addressed and  
a new draft submitted.   These comments were raised in April 2008 and  
need to be addressed ASAP. We haven't received response from the  
author (Mark Watson) on how/when these will be addressed.  If anyone  
(Mark included :-)) has ideas on where to proceed from here that would  
be helpful!

2) ALC/LCT - needs some Security Considerations text inserted to  
describe a basic secure mode of operation.  At prior meetings it was  
suggested to use a subset of the IPSec approach described in the most  
recent NORM Draft to address this issue.  This probably just needs to  
be addressed in the ALC document.  There were a few minor comments  
raised on LCT circa the last IETF that need to be addressed ... the  
more significant comments that Vincent Roca raised were withdrawn  
after some clarification from Mark Watson.  Again, if the someone can  
provide an indication of how/when this will be addressed, that will be  
helpful.

3) FLUTE - I think this document is in pretty good shape, but has  
dependencies on the above stuff that we are trying to resolve.  The  
document probably should be re-submitted to raise it from the dead.  I  
think the AD had some questions wr2 security, but I think it was hoped  
that ALC would address the transport security concerns.

I know the activity on the list has diminished and the energy on these  
items may be low, but to be your WG cheerleader, we really are 90+  
percent of the way there I think ... and the above are, in my opinion,  
the highest priority items in WG at present since other RMT items and  
other organizations are depending upon their completion.

If the authors of these documents (cc'd) are otherwise unavailable,  
perhaps we can solicit some volunteers to help carry these to  
completion.

best regards,

Brian Adamson
[e-mail]




_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt