Re: New Liaison Statement, "OMA LS 166 Liaison Statement to the IETF Requesting Guidance on using LCT revised"

All,

I will make sure to add this discussion item to the agenda of WG
meeting that will be held in Prague on March 21st.

    Regards,
    Lorenzo Vicisano


On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 05:39:55PM -0500, Dean Willis wrote:
> 
> Title: OMA LS 166 Liaison Statement to the IETF Requesting Guidance on using LCT revised
> Submission Date: 2007-02-15
> URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=298 
> Please reply by 2007-03-23
> 
> From: Dean Willis(OMA) <[email protected]>
> To: IETF Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Working Group([email protected],  [email protected])
> Cc: [email protected]
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> Reponse Contact: Toni Paila <[email protected]>
> Technical Contact: Toni Paila <[email protected]>
> Purpose: For action 
> Body: 1	Overview
> 
> OMA BAC-BCAST has a question to IETF RMT on the stability of standards-track evolution of 'Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block'. The latest Internet-Draft revision -04 (expired) of LCT introduced the header extension EXT_TIME for the purpose of signalling time stamps of different nature. OMA BAC-BCAST would be interested to use that method but is hesitant to refer to ongoing IETF work unless such work can be considered stable. Our concrete questions are: 
> 
> 1.	Does IETF RMT consider the revision of LCT building block stable enough so that we can refer to that in OMA BCAST 1.0 specification?
> 
> 2.	What is estimated schedule for revising the RMT RFCs on the Standards Track?
> 
> 2	Requested Action(s)
> OMA BAC-BCAST requests IETF RMT to provide guidance on the two questions presented in this liaison.
> 
> 3	Conclusion
> 
> 
> We thank you for your consideration.
> 
> With best regards, 
> OMA BAC BCAST 
> (Mobile Broadcast Services sub working group)
> Attachment(s):
>      PDF of liaison statement (https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file400.pdf)
> 
>