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

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Wed, 24 June 2009 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
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 6CB6F3A6CCE for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.247
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 XTExZE-kO7nc for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200433A6C5B for <rmt@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b7be1ae000004757-ec-4a42471f4594
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 31.78.18263.F17424A4; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:32:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:32:47 +0200
Received: from [147.214.183.61] ([147.214.183.61]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:32:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4A42471E.7040902@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:32:46 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Watson, Mark" <watson@qualcomm.com>
References: <C64BED3D.2E17B%watson@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <C64BED3D.2E17B%watson@qualcomm.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2009 15:32:46.0874 (UTC) FILETIME=[0662FFA0:01C9F4E1]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised@tools.ietf.org>, "Rod.Walsh@nokia.com" <Rod.Walsh@nokia.com>, "rmt@ietf.org" <rmt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rmt] AD comments on draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-06
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: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:48:27 -0000

Watson, Mark skrev:
> Hi Magnus,
> 
> I think you have overestimated the scope of my proposal (or I have
> overstated it). I am thinking something almost editorial in nature. I’m
> not suggesting that anyone try to write text which is generic across
> multiple protocols or multiple arbitrary domains.
> 
> What I’m suggesting is that if you have requirements for a *specific
> protocol* which are applicable to a *specific non-Internet domain*, then
> these should be collected into a “Requirements for non-Internet domains”
> section, rather than spread throughout the rest of the document.
> (Equally there could be requirements for non-Internet domains with
> specific well-defined properties – such as the text suggested by Rod for
> ALC which refers to “unidirectional fully provisioned (at a lower layer)
> channels”.)
> 
> The advantages are
> 
>     * if this section is deleted, you then have a complete protocol
>       specification that meets the requirements for Internet usage and
>       this would be a very clear and unambiguous policy.
>     * other SDOs have an clear place into which to propose their
>       domain-specific requirements, without the usual confusion about
>       whether those requirements mess things up for Internet usage.
> 
> 
> It just seems to me that there is a process discussion about
> non-Internet requirements which we repeat every time, and perhaps with
> guidance from the IESG that repetition could be avoided.
> 

Mark,

Okay, I understand your proposal better.

I think this is hard to do in a generic fashion as each specific domain
requires its considerations both technical and politically. In cases it
makes sense I can see writing up such recommendations for a specific
other domain.

However, what are you suggesting in regards to this document?

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------