Re: FLUTE revision

Hi Jani,
I'm missing where the version of FLUTE must be the same as the version of
ALC and LCT. It seems that if we define this specification to be FLUTE
version 2, and this FLUTE specification explicitly says that it must be used
with ALC version 1 as specified in RFC 5775 and that it must be used with
LCT version 1 as specified in RFC 5651 then there is no ambiguity, but maybe
I'm missing something?  I think what you are saying is that there is an
overloaded field that carries both the FLUTE version and the ALC version and
the LCT version?  If so, can you point to that?
Mike


On 1/25/11 12:51 AM, "Jani. Fi" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear RMTers,
> 
> One side effect of the version number change is problem with ALC and LCT
> versions. Version number is signalled in the LCT header field and in
> RFCs 5775 and 5651 (FLUTE revised will be working on top of these RFCs)
> version number is specified to be 1.
> 
> So it is not possible to signal FLUTE version 2 and ALC/LCT version 1 in
> the same header field.
> 
> BR,
> Jani
> 
>> Dear RMTers, We are in the process of revising FLUTE ­11, to produce
>> FLUTE ­12, and it is clear at this point that the FLUTE version number
>> will transition from 1 to 2.  One question that has arisen: Can an FDT
>> instance have a TOI > 0 with an EXT_FDT LCT extension header containing
>> the FDT Instance ID?  I think it is and should be restricted to TOI = 0
>> for carrying FDT instances, but there is some ambiguities in the text
>> here and there that might be construed to suggest otherwise.
>> Mike  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rmt mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt