IETF 78, RMT WG Minutes Friday, 30 July 2010 =========================== WG Updates - Brian Adamson ========================== Current WG Documents: - PUBLISHED - RFC 5775 - Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) - SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION: - draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-11 - draft-ietf-rmt-simple-auth-for-alc-norm-03 - PENDING SUBMISSION - draft-ietf-rmt-sec-discussion-05 - draft-ietf-rmt-fcast-01 - WORKING GROUP LAST CALL - draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-03 - UPDATED DRAFTS: - draft-mehta-rmt-flute-sdp-06 WG Milestones were updated to reflect that current documents are all planned to be submitted for publication by end of September 2010. The WG Chairs have established a division of labor for shepherding of the remaining documents. FLUTE Update - ============================ There is ambiguity in the "backward compatibility" of the revised FLUTE specification pending publication and the previously published Experimental RFC. The IESG comments had suggested a new protocol version number might be needed. Vincent Roca suggested it may just be an issue of clarification. It was noted the DVB Consortium has dependencies on this document. Additionally, it was noted that it is possible that deployed implementations of FLUTE are based on the revised specification instead of the Experimental RFC. The FLUTE editors will be queried to resolve this issue. SDP Descriptors for FLUTE ============================ When the document is updated, it is suggested that it adopt an RMT working group title so it is tracked with the working group status more easily. RaptorQ Update ============================= A revision may be provided after some simulation results confirm the benefits of updating the systematic index values in Section 5.6 of the document. General Discussion ============================== The WG is near closure with the few pending working group items. The AD (Dave Harrington) suggested that the WG Chairs provide a short descriptive plan for how any future RMT actions (e.g. additional FEC scheme specifications, etc) be handled. This could provide reference guidance for TSVWG or other Transport Area actions to handle post-RMT activities in this area. It was discussed and decided that an IETF 79 RMT meeting will not be needed.