IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-03.txt

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Wed, 25 July 2018 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC48F130E7F for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 07:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 8JW784VP5iMU for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BAF1126F72 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id q19-v6so6492100ioh.11 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=4zELWJeFHZDeAPVMsWIbpRTzen4+HIH8RuVkcDxf/iA=; b=crZ76hc40UzU3DTyYkCLNi7uBzRsEvKVjXwvB3hmPOp1LArhmRgekZ5f95ndHnjM+8 JycUM+6E1yrSCH+vDBILQ7Q8FybUq9xJxzTPuJAlamM6d4RpupbwJEbVioa7C/MFbpwy 0nd5z5VJVpvnUgVE1lMHQJYOostD9BJvfpG58K7NjJo0gqJ2XFB7hvOkCRiRM2LGJPw7 yW4su4DY/5Rol7xNFGJv4K1uGY7DXCl97Gxgy3KsPPKyoZZqFuEO3RR+8NfWZ7Iw4vTa vpV+r7pLXIXOOSNHiJbYgNwUYLc8E/eRxU+fSioQ2UTOYBmr9erqYKiFPfK2+/xkBS0f kA9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=4zELWJeFHZDeAPVMsWIbpRTzen4+HIH8RuVkcDxf/iA=; b=bHBkBaSbIJSCSu8xKF7Fe8A/7a/PiilnyfV9aQm7EltkmYb7xP4rxegb4qMNUKQTg9 I1wc6XIhKXaLBqxapPeuQDhoArCHwUaxofDlCbNicURz8YpNyu6Fyq9Vu5V38zdwCcMX rYCxJfsFJglXwDihgKNz81C3l4mevK+aLQsBj0oVITDtCE0dA8GvFHfIIdsGvZtjOfTB GZjk3wh2XIOp70aEXAuWB2vCO5G7foCvcB89++ZgKZVbMJCSrrWCTr5P6IBcLGbWx2zA uWioh3efEl39VtkzY3Akoy5dlzUaoBW6AUHcvDNk0OYvaNSEPUJwaTcQSdrbTAtilV/A oGzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGzzCx3GMxTiMhVhmhL6JuZ3+ZDNaG0RoOIthfrEy2/bsdBgX4a /PXKNgptw5y3Xs3VjShZ7BLjdSWNuAc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcRthwew9Vn+IuPAv3NL3IpTC6Yr4XqhvpeUbRXxVUOsOYxGRvHnWzJhgR5v5oVDA6NVVD7tA==
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:a082:: with SMTP id j124-v6mr16855620ioe.35.1532529284529; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 07:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.105] (rrcs-69-135-1-122.central.biz.rr.com. [69.135.1.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h21-v6sm849379itf.33.2018.07.25.07.34.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Jul 2018 07:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <153251220347.15477.4964875960468719912@ietfa.amsl.com> <02E6BC9D-2A8C-4489-BA31-7DB0F0195F0E@inria.fr>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <afeb6e10-2086-eb2f-0acb-4116c7ea0858@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 10:34:40 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <02E6BC9D-2A8C-4489-BA31-7DB0F0195F0E@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/GEXSg4hJyLZi786J8u1rLSRTb1M>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-03.txt
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:34:58 -0000

On 7/25/2018 6:10 AM, Vincent Roca wrote:
> Hello Wes, all,
>
> We have just updated the FECFRAME extension and RLC FEC Scheme for 
> FECFRAME I-Ds as
> discussed during IETF 102 meeting. Those updates fix a few typos, 
> slightly improve text, add
> an acknowledgment section. We authors do not think it requires a new WGLC.
>
>

Hi Vincent, one part of the shepherd write-up asks us to make sure that 
if any other RFCs are updated, obsoleted, etc., that it's indicated 
properly.

As this document explains, it extends but doesn't replace RFC 6363.

One could see this as a definite case for having it say "Updates: 6363" 
in the header.  Do you agree, or was there a reason I've forgotten why 
we decided not to indicate that?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email