IETF74 FCAST Action Item
Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:37:22 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rmt |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I've been on vacation and then catching-up, forgive the delay - this is anyway a repeat of what I said earlier. > 1) Do you think there is merit in the FCAST specification as an RMT > WG item (or not)? As I said in the working group meeting, I would support this. To me FLUTE is a useful spec that has been deployed, but when we scheduled RMT as a work item we envisaged a building block approach. I guess we are also wiser now, and we can provide a leaner more targeted specification? I think having more than one spec would be good, especially if this stimulated some IPR-free development work, but do not myself currently plan an implementation. > 2) Will you review the document so that we can rapidly finish it if > it is accepted as a working group item? Yes, I have reviewed the current draft, and I found it reasonably mature - it seems time to take on wider inputs from others in the WG. I'd be happy to review further revisions of this document. Gorry