IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Fri, 22 January 2021 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E383A09E3 for <srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 19:21:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R-NZggw3aeqI for <srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 19:21:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 937A63A09E1 for <srcomp@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 19:21:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DMPb91Fykz67dk3 for <srcomp@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 11:17:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 04:21:08 +0100
Received: from DGGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.50) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.2106.2 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 04:21:08 +0100
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.110]) by dggeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.50]) with mapi id 14.03.0509.000; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 11:21:05 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: "xiechf@chinatelecom.cn" <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>, "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, srcomp <srcomp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021
Thread-Index: AQHW75luikFftLtmTkGDFkfGOgXaQ6oyC5VAgADXZGA=
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 03:21:04 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02DCF540@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <BN6PR11MB40816283D26CEAA000594E19C8A19@BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <202101212059491786443@chinatelecom.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202101212059491786443@chinatelecom.cn>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.130]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02DCF540dggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/srcomp/akNV-hlj7pWXMGleCU9jLpvre88>
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021
X-BeenThere: srcomp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <srcomp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/srcomp>, <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/srcomp/>
List-Post: <mailto:srcomp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/srcomp>, <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 03:21:15 -0000

Oh I just noticed the minutes.

As we discussed, it may be better to finish the requirement document before getting started to analysis document, I think it is the same to the authorships.
It may be inappropriate to assign the authors before writing a draft.

Regarding the requirements drafts, I agree with the existing order. Regarding the analysis document, it may be good to list the order based on their contributions.

Thanks,
Cheng



From: Srcomp [mailto:srcomp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 9:00 PM
To: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; srcomp <srcomp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021


I diagree that the author list of analysis doc will be the same with the requirement doc.

Chongfeng
________________________________
xiechf@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>

From: Darren Dukes \(ddukes\)<mailto:ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: 2021-01-21 10:05
To: srcomp@ietf.org<mailto:srcomp@ietf.org>
Subject: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021
Attendees: Weiqiang, PSF, Cheng Li, Wim, Darren, Ron, Chongfeng

Minutes

  *   Add members to requirements author list in the order they appear in contributor list.

     *   Analysis doc will be same

  *   Added Compression Levels text to next revision (Add “able to support” to text)
  *   Security requirement

     *   Delete “Security Requirements” from Backlog they are already handled in the draft.

  *   Operational requirements

     *   Not discussed, need closure

  *   Resurrecting BCP or PS statement (previously posted) with this proposed text:

     *   Description: The compression mechanism SHOULD not violate any proposed standard or BCP. If it does violate any PS or BCP it MUST update the related document.
     *   Rationale: Violation of existing standards makes the internet more fragile.
     *   Metric: A solution that does not violate PS or BCP, or updates PS or BCP satisfies this requirement.
     *   ACTION: Finalize text on the mailing list and conclude next week.

  *   Candidate proposals

     *   ACTION: Team to send proposals to srcomp – include the drafts or RFCs for analysis.
     *

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email