Re: [tsvwg] Datatracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme-09.txt>
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 11 October 2018 18:25 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 4AE1D130F17; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 3FaGy5Dm0-kx; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2b]) (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 98381130EE9; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com with SMTP id o8-v6so3972887ybk.13; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MX7XUWT4nzzY3IjkBXaw0TxdDZfntWAFlsF6a/oAogY=; b=vBoHwyJr//4nLS9fOgkUevKBt/JLyBcWVG8ADP2BZzxsfjr6rU8RNnVtINBdptny0c 4hygjFOiNgVPjux8NvnOT2B+Ebm0agrRltBb8Ghj4v87pPDVqUdwdV5zGDyuGv+E7ACZ e1ygfC54Y+Vy1ob7ZUTPUpBqnVHygUPvzQ6Rqjabyi1vzmjZ7eM9Z73tS5ZooWLcveRO 7gKa3qu377WPW/FHbZt+rcONkit3/aG53sjLMV0oXrhkA/iGcCKpcNPoiks36ML435N0 uFvFwP90+sZGIGdd9ZRGuR43/0rBNh9JwksGqyR3w94KAKouIJUa9soz/QQmf06Sxi1G pI/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MX7XUWT4nzzY3IjkBXaw0TxdDZfntWAFlsF6a/oAogY=; b=mV+ooaRzfZggHiAKy6QUo2YY1/tnq1pugG4JbRT0r8hoyPOIie5xF9XS0MvBzI4IF5 61uLOCAgr34NdrMNEE/Ed85luCiygR8TsTvcLHXuN/4QY2GnmaQjgKqKPLwrrqgD2fDy ZJGPfY4LeKunLsJjQ51F7nSPNVweHyzsDqn638v3In+KysuctXWG0k9ZtdvdDGG6goVj IcJ48xwfse5Uk63dwUx5T8HUTBEuHIYmqeoUlYpbHX1JP22lFKbFyYB/UT5MygMhr87A /dW+GgMeTF7XaPbYnbUcfWjnG4SpmJWzQG8DgoIWPb1a+Ic/2gUKJuP45bIzw3L++BdN V/DA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoi3i6dkW97009WgA7o903wZeY1gAPc0Dk41cXHpUaRDEGd6MrbB qsCY80BcN4pSvSxgOwp6aMzCTUwWvuPU7D6vy3NmyVgx
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62NVAv1L2CwJ0IDqxZnV2QdgrJmqAuossRkQLXA5GgC4IJvIit/BxymXlDEcVbH93hAAI0MVRVHKeoD3TNveZc=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:af10:: with SMTP id a16-v6mr1603307ybh.292.1539282333577; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153926950984.14791.10291803113659469777.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <153926950984.14791.10291803113659469777.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:25:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dY3iQvO_FUxgm37GUfvQYfjcRtz3rXEwWfj6g8PD5e6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme@ietf.org, tsvwg-chairs <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>, tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b3b6910577f818a6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zRo2rPhuJ56vYnGhxP0jTKYIO9g>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Datatracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme-09.txt>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 18:25:45 -0000
Dear Wes the Document Shepherd, So, here's the deal on this one. (the companion draft is approved, pending my review of revisions to address comments, so don't worry about that one) On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 9:51 AM IETF Secretariat < ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org> wrote: > IESG state changed: > > New State: IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed > > (The previous state was IESG Evaluation) > > > Datatracker URL: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme/ The most significant concerns that I was catching on today's telechat for this draft were basically related. Everything else seems to be on track to resolve (even the question about the copyright is off as a question to the lawyer). Multiple ADs expressed concerns based on using code as a normative specification, based on their experience in RAI/ART with the OPUS codec, specified in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6716#appendix-A as a reference implementation. I am told that everyone working on OPUS decided that was the right thing to do then, and has now decided it was the wrong thing to do now. There are two problems they ran into: - Ensuring that their reference implementation is consistent across generations of processors and compilers, with people using different versions of the C language, turns out to be really hard. Whether C89, C99, C11, C18, or some future version of the language will suddenly return unexpected results on some processor that hasn't been tested, really can't be known in practice. So this isn't as stable a specification as we would have thought it would be. - Worse(!), after the publication of RFC 6716, everyone immediately extracted the code from the RFC and started changing it for their product implementations. So when the working group started to update the codec specification, which involved changing the reference implementation, all the implementers had to figure out what to change in their modified code to match the changes in the reference implementation, and that turned out to be a nightmare. So, the question to me, and now to you, is, "do you REALLY want to do this? Because we wanted to do this with OPUS, and we all thought it was a great plan, and we were wrong, and we don't understand why this will turn out better than OPUS". The theory is that this mechanism would be pretty simple to express in text. We didn't discuss this, but I suspect that if the implementation was an example, and not a reference implementation, that would help a lot. The ADs who have the most experience with this issue for OPUS are Ben Campbell, Adam Roach, and Eric Rescorla (yeah, he's a SEC AD, but also worked on OPUS). If you would like for me to put this on an agenda for the next informal telechat (would be a week from today), I'd be happy to do that. If you would like for me to arrange a meeting in Bangkok with one or more of these ADs, I'd be happy to do that (I'd start with Ben, who actually closed CODEC). Please let me know how you/the working group would like to proceed. Spencer
- Re: [tsvwg] Datatracker State Update Notice: <dra… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [tsvwg] Datatracker State Update Notice: <dra… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] Datatracker State Update Notice: <dra… Spencer Dawkins at IETF