RE: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02 WG Last Call

Wow, that's amazing!  Didn't anybody at OMA read the FEC building block
before trying to hand out FEC Encoding IDs?  Perhaps the OMA numbering space
is completely different than the IETF FEC Encoding ID space?  Anyway, as is
clearly stated in the FEC building block (RFC3452, and also in the new FEC
building block that is in IETF RMT wglc), the ONLY way to get an FEC
Encoding ID is to have an IETF RFC, and clearly OMA didn't do that, and the
Raptor specification is in IETF RMT wglc with FEC Encoding ID 1 specified,
so I guess that answers who is ahead and following the established
procedures.

Thanks for pointing this out, Ramakrishna (and Naveen).
Best, Mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 4:21 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rmt] draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02 WG Last Call

Hi,

Has the FEC Encoding ID = 1 been already reserved for Raptor FEC?

The latest version of OMA BCAST SG
http://member.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/Public_documents/BAC/BCAST/Permanen
t_documents/OMA-TS-BCAST_ServiceGuide-V1_0_0-20050910-D.zip
defines another null-FEC scheme with FEC Encoding ID = 1. This has to be
registered with IANA by the proponents. 

But it is not clear who is ahead of the race to IANA, IETF RMT or OMA BCAST.

Would you please clarify this issue?

(Thanks to Naveen of Qualcomm to point this out after the last SA4 meeting.)

Regards,
Ramakrishna Vedantham.


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of ext
Lorenzo Vicisano
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:54 PM
To: Michael Luby
Cc: Walsh Rod (Nokia-NRC/Tampere); [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rmt] draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02 WG Last Call


Mike,

the two WGLCs are overlapped: both drafts are in
right now and feedback is welcome for both of them,
we jsut moved the deadline for Raptor by one week.

Considering the normal IETF times, this is unlikely to have
an impact in the date of publication of the RFC.

> wglc back by a week, and there are some good reasons why it would be good
to
> have the FEC bb and the Raptor wglcs finished by the end of the week of
> September 26.  I've never seen another IETF wg that tried to keep the
wglcs

please state the reasons.

Note that this is a fairly informal process: if needed we can
delay asking the IESG to review the FEC BB.. in case something
comes up to require another WGLC. Also note that other FEC IDs
are behind and still have to enter WGLC.

	thanks,
	Lorenzo



On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:24:27PM -0700, Michael Luby wrote:
> All,
> I don't understand this.  Rod admittedly is going to do his wglc review at
> the last minute on the last day, and for this the Raptor wglc is pushed
back
> a week?  I don't understand why this is a reasonable argument to push the
> non-overlapped, and if I remember correctly the first time around the FEC
> bb, the LCT bb and the ALC pi were all in wglc at exactly the same time
and
> all finished wglc at exactly the same time within the RMT wg.
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> > Lorenzo Vicisano
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:31 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Rmt] draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02 WG Last Call
> >
> >
> > Rod,
> >
> > this is reasonable: let's make October 3rd the feedback deadline for
> > draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02.
> >
> > 	thanks,
> > 	Lorenzo
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:53:04PM +0300, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Hi Lorenzo et al.
> > >
> > > Is there any chance of shifting the raptor date back one week so we
> > > don't have to do two reviews at the last minute on the same day?
> > >
> > > (Yes I feel ashamed for openly admitting to leaving reviews to the
last
> > > minute - I know I'm not the only one though :)
> > >
> > > Cheers, Rod.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> > > >Behalf Of ext Lorenzo Vicisano
> > > >Sent: 12 September, 2005 09:34
> > > >To: [email protected]
> > > >Subject: [Rmt] draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02 WG Last Call
> > > >
> > > >Please be advised that this email starts RMT working group
> > > >last-call for draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02.
> > > >
> > > >Please provide your comments by Monday September 26th, if any.
> > > >
> > > >	thank you,
> > > >	Lorenzo Vicisano
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >Rmt mailing list
> > > >[email protected]
> > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
> > > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rmt mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
> >

_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt

_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt