All: Recently a few RMT Working Group issues have arisen: Most notably, we received this note from the editors:
We have <draft-mehta-rmt-flute-sdp-05.txt> in our queue for publication, and it has the following normative references that are not yet in our queue:REF1 draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised ID Tracker State: dead REF2 draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised ID Tracker State: dead REF3 draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised ID Tracker State: dead REF4 draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised ID Tracker State: AD Eval -- Revised ID neededWill REF1, REF2, and REF3 be revised and resubmitted? Or, should these references be updated? Should <draft-mehta-rmt-flute- sdp-05.txt> be removed from the RFC Editor queue?Please let us know how to proceed. Thank you.
So, the FLUTE, ALC, LCT, and FEC Basic Schemes documents need attention! I haven't heard anything recently from the authors here, and we need to establish some definitive status and plan on these issues. I don't think this should wait until Dublin.
I think we have an approach to address the security considerations issues that have been raised so that these documents can be completed and submitted. Here is the status of the pertinent documents:
1) FEC Basic Schemes - This was submitted for publication, but a few comments from our AD (Area Director - Magnus) need to be addressed and a new draft submitted. These comments were raised in April 2008 and need to be addressed ASAP. We haven't received response from the author (Mark Watson) on how/when these will be addressed. If anyone (Mark included :-)) has ideas on where to proceed from here that would be helpful!
2) ALC/LCT - needs some Security Considerations text inserted to describe a basic secure mode of operation. At prior meetings it was suggested to use a subset of the IPSec approach described in the most recent NORM Draft to address this issue. This probably just needs to be addressed in the ALC document. There were a few minor comments raised on LCT circa the last IETF that need to be addressed ... the more significant comments that Vincent Roca raised were withdrawn after some clarification from Mark Watson. Again, if the someone can provide an indication of how/when this will be addressed, that will be helpful.
3) FLUTE - I think this document is in pretty good shape, but has dependencies on the above stuff that we are trying to resolve. The document probably should be re-submitted to raise it from the dead. I think the AD had some questions wr2 security, but I think it was hoped that ALC would address the transport security concerns.
I know the activity on the list has diminished and the energy on these items may be low, but to be your WG cheerleader, we really are 90+ percent of the way there I think ... and the above are, in my opinion, the highest priority items in WG at present since other RMT items and other organizations are depending upon their completion.
If the authors of these documents (cc'd) are otherwise unavailable, perhaps we can solicit some volunteers to help carry these to completion.
best regards, Brian Adamson adamson at itd.nrl.navy.mil _______________________________________________ Rmt mailing list Rmt at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt