From csp@csperkins.org Mon Apr 9 05:12:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88ABD21F86A5 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:12:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aTkd2OOF1c48 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lon1-msapost-3.mail.demon.net (lon1-msapost-3.mail.demon.net [195.173.77.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53F321F86E5 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from starkperkins.demon.co.uk ([80.176.158.71] helo=[192.168.0.30]) by lon1-post-3.mail.demon.net with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1SHDRy-0002c2-fs; Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:12:13 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Colin Perkins In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 13:12:01 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <72279393-7B75-47E3-A8C6-9034EFF48828@csperkins.org> References: To: gjshep@gmail.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:12:15 -0000 Greg, I read this. It looks okay, and says that the pieces should be combined = in the expected manner. My only real comment would be that it feels more = informational than standards track, but I leave that decision for the WG = chairs. Colin On 22 Mar 2012, at 18:08, Greg Shepherd wrote: > Please resound ASAP. WG Consensus requires input from the WG. >=20 > Greg >=20 > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Greg Shepherd = wrote: >> We're halfway through the two week timer and the list has been = silent. >> We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote of >> support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Greg >>=20 >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Greg Shepherd = wrote: >>> This starts a 2 week WGLC for Pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (CDP) >>> for Protecting Multiple Source Flows in FEC Framework, >>> draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-02: >>>=20 >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp/ >>>=20 >>> Please read and respond to the list. >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>> Greg > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --=20 Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ From gjshep@gmail.com Mon Apr 9 06:20:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BFE21F8718 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 06:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AU407fal2a4t for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 06:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EC121F871C for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 06:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so3594974bku.31 for ; Mon, 09 Apr 2012 06:20:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8tAf/kkIkOi4QRKfk67VCF0Ic0SUKbR9FHbTRxTkmls=; b=jEIlDTOiue7MveP3IDa2nOwGXUZ5WwJm+J7LQ0HU57l/LSMLMGfYDLNRDJ9R8umF94 ss4y/MbEZ2IP/n+fvR27HetAvlILkCzlqIcMQB5Voo5wPP6BHBkp+9YNWubYEiKbe5ub W2YS216FE+aYpjTJoRpUer6F8pu+YBuCTChrAi7upn1LNRhWcfYmPM+r/zyeiYgc8kHn 4Keebf40UuEcOFWlPkdeNwkKcCaBXUl8++C4d5ZRr+tJ/yp3Zf9TYYxLTe6LUPBmAxRt ZbcVqtw/M+WpUA2sQejg4YobXOeE3O1vJ/oNu3ZQ0YTIDJ3hRkFWmXBTNTKufsD2IW3y HPsg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.157.12 with SMTP id z12mr3023936bkw.135.1333977619825; Mon, 09 Apr 2012 06:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.99.67 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 06:20:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <72279393-7B75-47E3-A8C6-9034EFF48828@csperkins.org> References: <72279393-7B75-47E3-A8C6-9034EFF48828@csperkins.org> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 06:20:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: Colin Perkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:20:21 -0000 Thanks Colin! On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Colin Perkins wrote: > Greg, > > I read this. It looks okay, and says that the pieces should be combined in the expected manner. My only real comment would be that it feels more informational than standards track, but I leave that decision for the WG chairs. > > Colin > > > On 22 Mar 2012, at 18:08, Greg Shepherd wrote: >> Please resound ASAP. WG Consensus requires input from the WG. >> >> Greg >> >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >>> We're halfway through the two week timer and the list has been silent. >>> We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote of >>> support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Greg >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >>>> This starts a 2 week WGLC for Pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (CDP) >>>> for Protecting Multiple Source Flows in FEC Framework, >>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-02: >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp/ >>>> >>>> Please read and respond to the list. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Greg >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > -- > Colin Perkins > http://csperkins.org/ > > > From luby@qualcomm.com Mon Apr 9 08:12:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D0121F8724 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:12:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xh7-S1kaqLyO for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791E621F854E for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:12:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=luby@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1333984348; x=1365520348; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date: message-id:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language: x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator:user-agent: x-originating-ip:content-type:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; z=From:=20"Luby,=20Michael"=20|To:=20Gr eg=20Shepherd=20,=20Colin=20Perkins=20< csp@csperkins.org>|CC:=20"fecframe@ietf.org"=20,=20"Luby,=20Michael"=0D=0A=09|Subject:=20Re:=20[Fecframe]=20draft-ietf-fecframe-pseud o-cdp=20WGLC|Thread-Topic:=20[Fecframe]=20draft-ietf-fecf rame-pseudo-cdp=20WGLC|Thread-Index:=20AQHNCFbUs6hfXW5ook qXZVUVfwIGeZaS+JqAgAATFYD//6n5AA=3D=3D|Date:=20Mon,=209 =20Apr=202012=2015:12:26=20+0000|Message-ID:=20|In-Reply-To:=20 |Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en-US |X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|user-agent:=20Mic rosoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121|x-originating-ip:=20[199 .106.114.10]|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"u s-ascii"|Content-ID:=20|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printab le|MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=NaNrdnzmh+5cIqS4IyPBap/bK8OZHjRt7+kd7cWY5TY=; b=ARxrJl/YA9bJMr2SKMV+TPDO0cDghS4QYtLRPBA5WGBQK2BUT4DSGdbS m0cNcfNiAaH9rdq/SXdNcFBUEtBgxBFb21r9gdeo+PtaM/+G0s9fEv8+a cjwLboY7XEApRKRF+yuxHb5TR76bpyHGwc5JpzgsPQ+0XapXZwH2gOnO2 4=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6674"; a="179971606" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2012 08:12:27 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,392,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="234656659" Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 09 Apr 2012 08:12:27 -0700 Received: from NASANEXD02C.na.qualcomm.com ([169.254.4.18]) by nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:12:27 -0700 From: "Luby, Michael" To: Greg Shepherd , Colin Perkins Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC Thread-Index: AQHNCFbUs6hfXW5ookqXZVUVfwIGeZaS+JqAgAATFYD//6n5AA== Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:12:26 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 x-originating-ip: [199.106.114.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "fecframe@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:12:29 -0000 I started to read it but unfortunately have not yet read it thoroughly. I agree with Colin in the sense that it doesn't seem to be on a standards track, it has some information in it that could be useful, if properly written (and could be standards track, if it was a lot more precise). My sense was that it has a couple of examples but no real general techniques, there is some confusing terminology (or at least overused, same terminology used for different purposes), seems to make a lot of implicit assumptions that aren't spelled out that would be necessary for the particular examples to work, and overall makes it hard to understand how to use this approach in general. I would suggest a fairly substantial rethinking of this one. Unfortunately, I won't have time to look at this again over the next two weeks. Mike On 4/9/12 6:20 AM, "Greg Shepherd" wrote: >Thanks Colin! > >On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Colin Perkins wrote: >> Greg, >> >> I read this. It looks okay, and says that the pieces should be combined >>in the expected manner. My only real comment would be that it feels more >>informational than standards track, but I leave that decision for the WG >>chairs. >> >> Colin >> >> >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 18:08, Greg Shepherd wrote: >>> Please resound ASAP. WG Consensus requires input from the WG. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >>>> We're halfway through the two week timer and the list has been silent. >>>> We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote of >>>> support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Greg Shepherd >>>>wrote: >>>>> This starts a 2 week WGLC for Pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (CDP) >>>>> for Protecting Multiple Source Flows in FEC Framework, >>>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-02: >>>>> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp/ >>>>> >>>>> Please read and respond to the list. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Greg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fecframe mailing list >>> Fecframe@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> >> >> -- >> Colin Perkins >> http://csperkins.org/ >> >> >> >_______________________________________________ >Fecframe mailing list >Fecframe@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From abegen@cisco.com Mon Apr 9 08:46:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C25A21F86D4 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:46:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EVhq01KjJMQd for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4776421F86C9 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:46:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; l=3296; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1333986411; x=1335196011; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=rod0ii1hPcZh02HjP3UtgRH4Bdwjwnt/xOsDvOgUt90=; b=Pgk/w6PZ4AIR0yMNmbsNkw75mbWonjBkjyx3if8qGQtvIj+7ijb6k05D PZUWmpCKEjhbhC/TuYRDO7QUGEMn728DRnvapDpMH4EeZnSteN/mjJNib bMIK+268FzJNQjF4qECT2/hfxmmRgv9FmlNswfOwOyBt14JqnKOYwxWGP Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABYEg0+tJXG8/2dsb2JhbABEuSCBB4IJAQEBBAEBAQ8BWwsMBAIBCBEEAQEBCh0HIQYLFAkIAgQBDQUIGodeAwsLmgqWFg2JU4othUpjBJZ9iiiDFIFpgmc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,393,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="73170569" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2012 15:46:36 +0000 Received: from xht-rcd-x01-p.cisco.com (xht-rcd-x01-p.cisco.com [173.37.178.212]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q39FkaRL007533; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:46:36 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01-p.cisco.com ([169.254.3.120]) by xht-rcd-x01-p.cisco.com ([173.37.178.212]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:46:36 -0700 From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" To: "Luby, Michael" , Greg Shepherd , Colin Perkins Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC Thread-Index: AQHM9Y5oYUTwcglnikao6K4vFs4/VpZchu8AgBqw5ACAG+ZYgIAAExWAgAAfVAD//5PEwA== Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:46:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [173.37.178.200] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.0.0.4211-6.800.1017-18826.006 x-tm-as-result: No--47.074700-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "fecframe@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:46:52 -0000 Well, the draft is informational not PS track. It simply tries to show a fe= w examples for the use of framework. -acbegen > -----Original Message----- > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Luby, Michael > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:12 AM > To: Greg Shepherd; Colin Perkins > Cc: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC >=20 > I started to read it but unfortunately have not yet read it thoroughly. = I > agree with Colin in the sense that it doesn't seem to be on a standards > track, it has some information in it that could be useful, if properly > written (and could be standards track, if it was a lot more precise). My > sense was that it has a couple of examples but no real general techniques= , > there is some confusing terminology (or at least overused, same > terminology used for different purposes), seems to make a lot of implicit > assumptions that aren't spelled out that would be necessary for the > particular examples to work, and overall makes it hard to understand how > to use this approach in general. I would suggest a fairly substantial > rethinking of this one. Unfortunately, I won't have time to look at this > again over the next two weeks. > Mike >=20 > On 4/9/12 6:20 AM, "Greg Shepherd" wrote: >=20 > >Thanks Colin! > > > >On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Colin Perkins wrote: > >> Greg, > >> > >> I read this. It looks okay, and says that the pieces should be combine= d > >>in the expected manner. My only real comment would be that it feels mor= e > >>informational than standards track, but I leave that decision for the W= G > >>chairs. > >> > >> Colin > >> > >> > >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 18:08, Greg Shepherd wrote: > >>> Please resound ASAP. WG Consensus requires input from the WG. > >>> > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Greg Shepherd wrot= e: > >>>> We're halfway through the two week timer and the list has been silen= t. > >>>> We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote of > >>>> support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Greg > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Greg Shepherd > >>>>wrote: > >>>>> This starts a 2 week WGLC for Pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (CDP= ) > >>>>> for Protecting Multiple Source Flows in FEC Framework, > >>>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-02: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Please read and respond to the list. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Greg > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Fecframe mailing list > >>> Fecframe@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Colin Perkins > >> http://csperkins.org/ > >> > >> > >> > >_______________________________________________ > >Fecframe mailing list > >Fecframe@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu Fri Apr 20 05:33:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8742221F874F for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:33:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tWkIZnEXNttj for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E369221F8748 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22B4100D8E for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:31:51 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id weDODB47ejtx for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:31:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA75C100D8C for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:31:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.1.1.190] (10.1.1.190) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:33:47 +0200 Message-ID: <4F9157AA.8020205@neclab.eu> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:33:46 +0200 From: Martin Stiemerling User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.1.1.190] Subject: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:33:53 -0000 Dear all, The draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 is scheduled for the upcoming IESG telechat on April 26th. And as your new Area Director I have a question about the WG's view on the IPR. There are by today (April 20th) 4 IPR disclosures with respect to this draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_tag=draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor What is the opinion of the WG about those IPR disclosures? Is there any disagreement to move the draft forward or are all fine with the current state? Thanks in advance, Martin -- IETF Transport Area Director martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 283 From luby@qualcomm.com Fri Apr 20 09:29:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F8F21F8747 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:29:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MUP9nVDsw7oL for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DFD21F870B for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:29:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=luby@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1334939382; x=1366475382; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date: message-id:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language: x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator:user-agent: x-originating-ip:content-type:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FNR5cOswN8+ictpEHzt22zc/SFIgLP4FJQweiPh5UP4=; b=P+KNAZsEeZi0GNJ8lTFVLhazjf+lbr0D4bdiB/diAstxTLPsHhtrcUwM 2+DSTF6nLK76IcauTWDc3fZhp2JUc8MarHyvRuTNFdaX0frHpQ0dz/nLS PUoCES2x93Ab1cVIsEsgsdfFluqQh+Fdks3QgOXvakF/TmQ9gHrzc19Um I=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6687"; a="181244973" Received: from ironmsg02-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.16]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2012 09:29:41 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,452,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="120515167" Received: from nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.2]) by ironmsg02-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 20 Apr 2012 09:29:41 -0700 Received: from NASANEXD02C.na.qualcomm.com ([169.254.4.18]) by nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.2]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:29:41 -0700 From: "Luby, Michael" To: Martin Stiemerling , "fecframe@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 Thread-Index: AQHNHvHaFXF64Dm5Gk6ykvXCIAcmLJaj57GA Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:29:40 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F9157AA.8020205@neclab.eu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.120402 x-originating-ip: [10.64.11.237] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:29:43 -0000 Just for information, only 1711 is relevant, all the others are obsolete. Also, 1711 exactly mirrors the IPR statements for RFC 5053 and RFC 6330 (these are the original Raptor and RaptorQ specifications for object delivery developed in RMT). On 4/20/12 5:33 AM, "Martin Stiemerling" wrote: >Dear all, > >The draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 is scheduled for the upcoming IESG >telechat on April 26th. > >And as your new Area Director I have a question about the WG's view on >the IPR. There are by today (April 20th) 4 IPR disclosures with respect >to this draft: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=3Ddocument_search&id_docum= en >t_tag=3Ddraft-ietf-fecframe-raptor > >What is the opinion of the WG about those IPR disclosures? Is there any >disagreement to move the draft forward or are all fine with the current >state? > >Thanks in advance, > > Martin > >--=20 >IETF Transport Area Director > >martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu > >NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited >Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL >Registered in England 283 >_______________________________________________ >Fecframe mailing list >Fecframe@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu Sun Apr 22 13:19:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66C321F8595 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:19:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.473 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jo1RBb5aYINx for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452AF21F8592 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66708100DA3; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:17:01 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W18g-Fi+2z6Q; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:17:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from METHONE.office.hd (methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C42100D79; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:16:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.7.0.105] (10.7.0.105) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:18:47 +0200 Message-ID: <4F9467A4.80105@neclab.eu> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:18:44 +0200 From: Martin Stiemerling User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luby, Michael" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.7.0.105] Cc: "fecframe@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:19:20 -0000 Hi Michael, Ok, good to know! Thanks Martin On 04/20/2012 06:29 PM, Luby, Michael wrote: > Just for information, only 1711 is relevant, all the others are obsolete. > Also, 1711 exactly mirrors the IPR statements for RFC 5053 and RFC 6330 > (these are the original Raptor and RaptorQ specifications for object > delivery developed in RMT). > > On 4/20/12 5:33 AM, "Martin Stiemerling" > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> The draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 is scheduled for the upcoming IESG >> telechat on April 26th. >> >> And as your new Area Director I have a question about the WG's view on >> the IPR. There are by today (April 20th) 4 IPR disclosures with respect >> to this draft: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_documen >> t_tag=draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor >> >> What is the opinion of the WG about those IPR disclosures? Is there any >> disagreement to move the draft forward or are all fine with the current >> state? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Martin >> >> -- >> IETF Transport Area Director >> >> martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu >> >> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited >> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL >> Registered in England 283 >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > -- IETF Transport Area Director martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 283 From Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu Tue Apr 24 06:37:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9303D21F87F4 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w8li3DDdbq3E for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A64721F87B9 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79AC8100E04 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:35:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zzrc3W1SHMGH for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:35:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F230100DF2 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:35:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.1.1.190] (10.1.1.190) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:37:24 +0200 Message-ID: <4F96AC94.1070902@neclab.eu> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:37:24 +0200 From: Martin Stiemerling User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <4F9157AA.8020205@neclab.eu> In-Reply-To: <4F9157AA.8020205@neclab.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.1.1.190] Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:37:53 -0000 There has been no answer to my below question about what the WG's opinion about the IPR disclosure is. I read the silence as 'don not like' the IPR unless the WG speaks up and tells me the opposite. Please note that this draft is on the IESG telechat for this Thursday (2012-04-26). I guess the IESG will ask exactly my question and it would be good to have a response from the WG. Thanks Martin -- your responsible Area Director On 04/20/2012 02:33 PM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: > Dear all, > > The draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 is scheduled for the upcoming IESG > telechat on April 26th. > > And as your new Area Director I have a question about the WG's view on > the IPR. There are by today (April 20th) 4 IPR disclosures with respect > to this draft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_tag=draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor > > > What is the opinion of the WG about those IPR disclosures? Is there any > disagreement to move the draft forward or are all fine with the current > state? > > Thanks in advance, > > Martin > -- IETF Transport Area Director martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 283 From abegen@cisco.com Tue Apr 24 08:15:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD90721F87E5 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:15:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1a8g9KvqnF5N for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1FD21F87C4 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:15:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2105; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1335280538; x=1336490138; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=v5FampZclEmrrdRQL2jEbo1QAMTtSjNf3+CcStJZU0c=; b=l2Knda5GnO6HhG7BYEW7LFfVb6crmXjm4raza6TCGhm8gSV5z9XwmrJ9 C9xE0kqMxkmBpqN2DaHudkm5Zzu4TwsMYl0LQrOn8+sdiKep/GZXD0Hb3 BYvEGWC0/YhT87Qb28QNJwiy+P8bMkkmaBL5EkVsqoWmkR5WsIA4PelaO s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EANHClk+tJV2a/2dsb2JhbABEsXiBB4IJAQEBBAEBAQ8BWxcEAgEIEQQBAQEKHQcnCxQJCAIEARIIGodtAQqaRqBHBIlngQyFe2MEpE+BaYJpgVQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,473,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="74363808" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2012 15:15:37 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3OFFbrt016765; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:15:37 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:15:37 -0500 From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" To: Martin Stiemerling , "fecframe@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 Thread-Index: AQHNIh90doFQzZgBE0mW3o4q5cxAHpaqFYvQ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:15:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4F9157AA.8020205@neclab.eu> <4F96AC94.1070902@neclab.eu> In-Reply-To: <4F96AC94.1070902@neclab.eu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [173.37.178.200] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-6.800.1017-18862.005 x-tm-as-result: No--52.438400-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:15:39 -0000 FWIW, I don=92t have a particular problem with this IPR on Raptor drafts. R= aptor is used in several places and I don=92t see why not we should documen= t it properly within the FEC framework. -acbegen > -----Original Message----- > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Martin Stiemerling > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:37 AM > To: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-rap= tor-10 >=20 > There has been no answer to my below question about what the WG's > opinion about the IPR disclosure is. >=20 > I read the silence as 'don not like' the IPR unless the WG speaks up and > tells me the opposite. >=20 > Please note that this draft is on the IESG telechat for this Thursday > (2012-04-26). > I guess the IESG will ask exactly my question and it would be good to > have a response from the WG. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Martin -- your responsible Area Director >=20 >=20 > On 04/20/2012 02:33 PM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 is scheduled for the upcoming IESG > > telechat on April 26th. > > > > And as your new Area Director I have a question about the WG's view on > > the IPR. There are by today (April 20th) 4 IPR disclosures with respect > > to this draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=3Ddocument_search&id_do= cument_tag=3Ddraft-ietf-fecframe-raptor > > > > > > What is the opinion of the WG about those IPR disclosures? Is there any > > disagreement to move the draft forward or are all fine with the current > > state? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Martin > > >=20 > -- > IETF Transport Area Director >=20 > martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu >=20 > NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited > Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL > Registered in England 283 > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From luby@qualcomm.com Tue Apr 24 10:28:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F07821F8812 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bh40aCzbnh6P for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9180A21F8652 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:28:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=luby@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1335288510; x=1366824510; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date: message-id:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language: x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator:user-agent: x-originating-ip:content-type:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=M96D2gyQDfa3innwe9Xgov/fR7GW7TGZLVSrYvNH2j4=; b=OOTDZ0kknMsObWnjnE+542NOEZPL8yYRkjJ3kGPFJxZViYej5re474l3 YS9O3wtEcA0PTOqkNiJDzIy7AkjBgN/2WjAebv+XB0x4WCwYtWj7mid3G uh2NmbWJ8dWVINwwn/VBMah9KW9Ixty+AtcqYyukQAbgrMUpOZVfvs/0p A=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6691"; a="184512554" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2012 10:28:27 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,473,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="240426128" Received: from nasanexhc09.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.8]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 24 Apr 2012 10:28:27 -0700 Received: from NASANEXD02C.na.qualcomm.com ([169.254.4.18]) by nasanexhc09.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.8]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:28:27 -0700 From: "Luby, Michael" To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" , Martin Stiemerling , "fecframe@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 Thread-Index: AQHNIj+o9EkeGlJ8yEaP9BtKgZEWSA== Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:28:26 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.120402 x-originating-ip: [172.30.39.5] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <97BC25EE4DC9AD4E9178BFC04DDA065C@qualcomm.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:28:31 -0000 Also, in the draft IESG writeup, it says: =20 There has been controversy over this document. It represents WG consensus. IPR was declared, and announced in 2009 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg00514.html and again in 2011 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg00886.html. The WG didn't seem to care, and had no comments about the IPR. I believe that the first sentence is a typo, I.e., it should say "There has been no controversy over this document", as I don't remember any controversy with this document. Mike On 4/24/12 8:15 AM, "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" wrote: >FWIW, I don=B9t have a particular problem with this IPR on Raptor drafts. >Raptor is used in several places and I don=B9t see why not we should >document it properly within the FEC framework. > >-acbegen > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling >> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:37 AM >> To: fecframe@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on >>draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 >>=20 >> There has been no answer to my below question about what the WG's >> opinion about the IPR disclosure is. >>=20 >> I read the silence as 'don not like' the IPR unless the WG speaks up and >> tells me the opposite. >>=20 >> Please note that this draft is on the IESG telechat for this Thursday >> (2012-04-26). >> I guess the IESG will ask exactly my question and it would be good to >> have a response from the WG. >>=20 >> Thanks >>=20 >> Martin -- your responsible Area Director >>=20 >>=20 >> On 04/20/2012 02:33 PM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: >> > Dear all, >> > >> > The draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 is scheduled for the upcoming IESG >> > telechat on April 26th. >> > >> > And as your new Area Director I have a question about the WG's view on >> > the IPR. There are by today (April 20th) 4 IPR disclosures with >>respect >> > to this draft: >> >=20 >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=3Ddocument_search&id_docu= me >>nt_tag=3Ddraft-ietf-fecframe-raptor >> > >> > >> > What is the opinion of the WG about those IPR disclosures? Is there >>any >> > disagreement to move the draft forward or are all fine with the >>current >> > state? >> > >> > Thanks in advance, >> > >> > Martin >> > >>=20 >> -- >> IETF Transport Area Director >>=20 >> martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu >>=20 >> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited >> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL >> Registered in England 283 >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >_______________________________________________ >Fecframe mailing list >Fecframe@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From stewe@stewe.org Tue Apr 24 10:47:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF6F21F887D for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:47:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.419 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Mlw6MO2QI3y for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39EE521F887E for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail163-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.249) by VA3EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.7.40.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:47:22 +0000 Received: from mail163-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail163-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CFF638021A; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:47:22 +0000 (UTC) X-SpamScore: -43 X-BigFish: PS-43(zzbb2dI9371I936eK1443N542M1432N98dK11fbIzz1202h1082kzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839he5bh) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.133; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0710HT004.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI Received-SPF: pass (mail163-va3: domain of stewe.org designates 157.56.240.133 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.133; envelope-from=stewe@stewe.org; helo=BL2PRD0710HT004.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ; Received: from mail163-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail163-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1335289639941412_5625; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from VA3EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.240]) by mail163-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41F61000FF; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BL2PRD0710HT004.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.133) by VA3EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (10.7.99.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:47:18 +0000 Received: from BL2PRD0710MB349.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.136]) by BL2PRD0710HT004.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.102.39]) with mapi id 14.16.0143.004; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:47:17 +0000 From: Stephan Wenger To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" , Martin Stiemerling , "fecframe@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 Thread-Index: AQHNIkJKt1CuXV0g8U+rcehO639qHQ== Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:47:17 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.255.102.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <725AA3940D42824CA84D3C9EC8549C7A@namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:47:24 -0000 +1 Stephan On 4.24.2012 08:15 , "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" wrote: >FWIW, I don=B9t have a particular problem with this IPR on Raptor drafts. >Raptor is used in several places and I don=B9t see why not we should >document it properly within the FEC framework. > >-acbegen > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling >> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:37 AM >> To: fecframe@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on >>draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 >>=20 >> There has been no answer to my below question about what the WG's >> opinion about the IPR disclosure is. >>=20 >> I read the silence as 'don not like' the IPR unless the WG speaks up and >> tells me the opposite. >>=20 >> Please note that this draft is on the IESG telechat for this Thursday >> (2012-04-26). >> I guess the IESG will ask exactly my question and it would be good to >> have a response from the WG. >>=20 >> Thanks >>=20 >> Martin -- your responsible Area Director >>=20 >>=20 >> On 04/20/2012 02:33 PM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: >> > Dear all, >> > >> > The draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 is scheduled for the upcoming IESG >> > telechat on April 26th. >> > >> > And as your new Area Director I have a question about the WG's view on >> > the IPR. There are by today (April 20th) 4 IPR disclosures with >>respect >> > to this draft: >> >=20 >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=3Ddocument_search&id_docu= me >>nt_tag=3Ddraft-ietf-fecframe-raptor >> > >> > >> > What is the opinion of the WG about those IPR disclosures? Is there >>any >> > disagreement to move the draft forward or are all fine with the >>current >> > state? >> > >> > Thanks in advance, >> > >> > Martin >> > >>=20 >> -- >> IETF Transport Area Director >>=20 >> martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu >>=20 >> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited >> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL >> Registered in England 283 >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >_______________________________________________ >Fecframe mailing list >Fecframe@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > From Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu Wed Apr 25 02:48:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611D321F870F for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:48:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oJc3Zekh67pH for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204A721F85D0 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74920100DF9 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:45:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZUC+snIZ3amO for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:45:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F0E100D73 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:45:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.1.1.190] (10.1.1.190) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:47:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4F97C849.1060004@neclab.eu> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:47:53 +0200 From: Martin Stiemerling User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "fecframe@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.1.1.190] Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:48:00 -0000 Ok, thanks for your feedback so far! This helps for sure in the upcoming IESG discussions. Thanks, Martin On 04/24/2012 07:47 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > +1 > Stephan > > On 4.24.2012 08:15 , "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" wrote: > >> FWIW, I donšt have a particular problem with this IPR on Raptor drafts. >> Raptor is used in several places and I donšt see why not we should >> document it properly within the FEC framework. >> >> -acbegen >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:37 AM >>> To: fecframe@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on >>> draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 >>> >>> There has been no answer to my below question about what the WG's >>> opinion about the IPR disclosure is. >>> >>> I read the silence as 'don not like' the IPR unless the WG speaks up and >>> tells me the opposite. >>> >>> Please note that this draft is on the IESG telechat for this Thursday >>> (2012-04-26). >>> I guess the IESG will ask exactly my question and it would be good to >>> have a response from the WG. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Martin -- your responsible Area Director >>> >>> >>> On 04/20/2012 02:33 PM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 is scheduled for the upcoming IESG >>>> telechat on April 26th. >>>> >>>> And as your new Area Director I have a question about the WG's view on >>>> the IPR. There are by today (April 20th) 4 IPR disclosures with >>> respect >>>> to this draft: >>>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_docume >>> nt_tag=draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor >>>> >>>> >>>> What is the opinion of the WG about those IPR disclosures? Is there >>> any >>>> disagreement to move the draft forward or are all fine with the >>> current >>>> state? >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance, >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> IETF Transport Area Director >>> >>> martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu >>> >>> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited >>> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL >>> Registered in England 283 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fecframe mailing list >>> Fecframe@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> > > -- IETF Transport Area Director martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 283 From abegen@cisco.com Mon Apr 30 10:01:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1833421F87A8 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dYBP2S1CjbtB for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1382321F876C for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:01:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; l=4043; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1335805279; x=1337014879; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=PA+YINK+6Ou2GZGUOMtrB3acolt95XH74wmppL5QvYo=; b=VBL5FXrva/If5V5cauzbrbvRSPuITva0Rd/Xm/E7aX7KoYLMe3gCHwEc R2ZV5WaktbA5IjW5hANRTcW532GU5Z5meedgC4Ojl8l2tNsYxU4LY7qtB BwinQdn5KOkn29Hoq9PFvPIy/CtrG9cZmvXXomFXTjQfNRLwZ60ospGke g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFALbEnk+tJXG9/2dsb2JhbABEr06DAIEHggkBAQEEAQEBDwFbCwwEAgEIDgMEAQEBCh0HIQYLFAkIAgQOBQgah10DCwEKmhmWGQ2JU4oMhjNjBJcPii6DGoFpgmg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,505,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="79125481" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2012 17:01:18 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3UH1IIp012378; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:01:18 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:01:18 -0500 From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" To: Greg Shepherd Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC Thread-Index: AQHM9Y5oYUTwcglnikao6K4vFs4/VpZchu8AgBqw5ACAG+ZYgIAAExWAgAAfVAD//5PEwIAhFdQg Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:01:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [173.37.178.200] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-6.800.1017-18874.006 x-tm-as-result: No--55.303500-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "fecframe@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:01:20 -0000 The current draft will expire soon. Is the WGLC ended? Can I submit a refre= sh? -acbegen > -----Original Message----- > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Ali C. Begen (abegen) > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:47 AM > To: Luby, Michael; Greg Shepherd; Colin Perkins > Cc: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC >=20 > Well, the draft is informational not PS track. It simply tries to show a = few examples for the use of framework. >=20 > -acbegen >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of Luby, Michael > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:12 AM > > To: Greg Shepherd; Colin Perkins > > Cc: fecframe@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC > > > > I started to read it but unfortunately have not yet read it thoroughly.= I > > agree with Colin in the sense that it doesn't seem to be on a standards > > track, it has some information in it that could be useful, if properly > > written (and could be standards track, if it was a lot more precise). = My > > sense was that it has a couple of examples but no real general techniqu= es, > > there is some confusing terminology (or at least overused, same > > terminology used for different purposes), seems to make a lot of implic= it > > assumptions that aren't spelled out that would be necessary for the > > particular examples to work, and overall makes it hard to understand h= ow > > to use this approach in general. I would suggest a fairly substantial > > rethinking of this one. Unfortunately, I won't have time to look at th= is > > again over the next two weeks. > > Mike > > > > On 4/9/12 6:20 AM, "Greg Shepherd" wrote: > > > > >Thanks Colin! > > > > > >On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Colin Perkins wrot= e: > > >> Greg, > > >> > > >> I read this. It looks okay, and says that the pieces should be combi= ned > > >>in the expected manner. My only real comment would be that it feels m= ore > > >>informational than standards track, but I leave that decision for the= WG > > >>chairs. > > >> > > >> Colin > > >> > > >> > > >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 18:08, Greg Shepherd wrote: > > >>> Please resound ASAP. WG Consensus requires input from the WG. > > >>> > > >>> Greg > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Greg Shepherd wr= ote: > > >>>> We're halfway through the two week timer and the list has been sil= ent. > > >>>> We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote of > > >>>> support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Greg > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Greg Shepherd > > >>>>wrote: > > >>>>> This starts a 2 week WGLC for Pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (C= DP) > > >>>>> for Protecting Multiple Source Flows in FEC Framework, > > >>>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-02: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp/ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Please read and respond to the list. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> Greg > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Fecframe mailing list > > >>> Fecframe@ietf.org > > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Colin Perkins > > >> http://csperkins.org/ > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Fecframe mailing list > > >Fecframe@ietf.org > > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From gjshep@gmail.com Mon Apr 30 10:34:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E35221E8048 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:34:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ncgO-enskRrR for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BBF21E8047 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so2445673bku.31 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:34:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ACwyJ2BUvHg+OxZMpMeuWOTPbRNF2Qd16kr5MJh9ukU=; b=NizmxnuIiavPI0DKxqe+79jG7x1bMJjkIAZGJ3kbw07xeZw2thxgPMtj0/aXHVO74t oZciOtIgnsivAO8myH1hHR7Ua/PTDdRwpxQnq+a5i4OfoMLLmJJa7drnnfZDJqVlrQxc 7eRTqfaPOVKl6tqE8R1HrQq86JDJiD9LVKEVRH0B0ENjs1w91vBLrv0kJf2gJOdiXu8U CJpG7x3wuG0HQr2FGcuqO+t+521qOr+22/jSnEyGqLOb2SwJheMmglI436dZm6AicdZ0 UCDzIRSPq3kdIFTigHShQlPOIbpRyHM6x6xKmo2Kroa1bzS7aUeYqfe5dBI06jhsVhae 4Okg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.148.83 with SMTP id o19mr3790511bkv.96.1335807240060; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.41.205 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:34:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:34:00 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "fecframe@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:34:02 -0000 I'm working on shepherd docs this week. Greg On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote: > The current draft will expire soon. Is the WGLC ended? Can I submit a ref= resh? > > -acbegen > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Be= half Of Ali C. Begen (abegen) >> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:47 AM >> To: Luby, Michael; Greg Shepherd; Colin Perkins >> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC >> >> Well, the draft is informational not PS track. It simply tries to show a= few examples for the use of framework. >> >> -acbegen >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Luby, Michael >> > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:12 AM >> > To: Greg Shepherd; Colin Perkins >> > Cc: fecframe@ietf.org >> > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC >> > >> > I started to read it but unfortunately have not yet read it thoroughly= . =A0I >> > agree with Colin in the sense that it doesn't seem to be on a standard= s >> > track, it has some information in it that could be useful, if properly >> > written (and could be standards track, if it was a lot more precise). = =A0My >> > sense was that it has a couple of examples but no real general techniq= ues, >> > there is some confusing terminology (or at least overused, same >> > terminology used for different purposes), seems to make a lot of impli= cit >> > assumptions that aren't spelled out that would be necessary for the >> > particular examples to work, =A0and overall makes it hard to understan= d how >> > to use this approach in general. =A0I would suggest a fairly substanti= al >> > rethinking of this one. =A0Unfortunately, I won't have time to look at= this >> > again over the next two weeks. >> > Mike >> > >> > On 4/9/12 6:20 AM, "Greg Shepherd" wrote: >> > >> > >Thanks Colin! >> > > >> > >On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Colin Perkins wro= te: >> > >> Greg, >> > >> >> > >> I read this. It looks okay, and says that the pieces should be comb= ined >> > >>in the expected manner. My only real comment would be that it feels = more >> > >>informational than standards track, but I leave that decision for th= e WG >> > >>chairs. >> > >> >> > >> Colin >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 18:08, Greg Shepherd wrote: >> > >>> Please resound ASAP. WG Consensus requires input from the WG. >> > >>> >> > >>> Greg >> > >>> >> > >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Greg Shepherd w= rote: >> > >>>> We're halfway through the two week timer and the list has been si= lent. >> > >>>> We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote of >> > >>>> support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Thanks, >> > >>>> Greg >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Greg Shepherd >> > >>>>wrote: >> > >>>>> This starts a 2 week WGLC for Pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (= CDP) >> > >>>>> for Protecting Multiple Source Flows in FEC Framework, >> > >>>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-02: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp/ >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Please read and respond to the list. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Thanks, >> > >>>>> Greg >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>> Fecframe mailing list >> > >>> Fecframe@ietf.org >> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Colin Perkins >> > >> http://csperkins.org/ >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >> > >Fecframe mailing list >> > >Fecframe@ietf.org >> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Fecframe mailing list >> > Fecframe@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe