IETF 74, FEC Framework (FECFrame) Meeting Minutes Chairs Greg Shepherd Marshall Eubanks ========================================================= THURSDAY, March 26, 2009 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Continental 3 TSV fecframe AGENDA o Administriva - Mailing list: fecframe@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe - Charter : http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/fecframe-charter.html - Scribe(s)? - Blue Sheets o Agenda Bashing 5 minutes Chairs o Review and status of work items 10 minutes Chairs RFC published ------------ Expired (On Hold) ------------ Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework Active Drafts ------------ draft-ietf-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec draft-ietf-fecframe-framework draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor -00 draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements Active Drafts (Presentations & Discussions) ------------- Ali Begen draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-02.txt 5 minutes draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-01.txt 5 minutes Mark Watson draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor-01.txt 10 minutes Ulas C. Kozat draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp 5 minutes New Drafts (Presentations & Discussions) ------------- Vincent Roca draft-roca-fecframe-rs-00.txt 10 minutes ------ Notes for FECFRAME WG: ----- draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-01.txt: Q: Do you mean RTP profile or a payload format? A: RTP profile. Q: DVB does not use SDP, so what is the concern? A: They want to use SDP but there is no way of defining FEC parameters in SDP. Q: Do you want to provide such support then? A: That is the intention, but not very hopeful. Q: What is the intention of this document? It does repeat and reference DVB AL-FEC heavily, rather should it be referencing other IETF draft documents? A: This is an informational draft that simply says if you want to use DVB AL-FEC, this is the reference document to use for the actual protocol. Q: Ready for WGLC? 4-5 to 0 in favor of WGLC. ----- draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-02.txt: Q: The discussion on CNAME, does it also hold for multicast? A: Yes. Q: Does minimum offer mean minimum D parameter? A: Yes. Q: What do you mean by multiple offers? A: Multiple m lines to choose from a single offer should be the right terminology. Q: Is there an IANA consideration? A: Yes. Q: Is this a fully specified FEC Scheme or does it just define an RTP payload format? A: It is not a fully specified FEC Scheme. Q: Should we make it a fully specified FEC Scheme? Q: Ready for WGLC? 4-5 to 0 in favor of WGLC. ----- draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor-01.txt: Q: Is there any IANA consideration? A: Registration for the payload types are needed. Q: RTP payload type documents needs to be WGLC at AVT as well? A: We just last call and cross-post it. Q: Ready for WGLC? 6 to 0 in favor of WGLC. Should we call for WGLC for framework document before passing others to WGLC? All voted yes to WGLC for the framework. Afterwards the rest will be called. ----- draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp: Dependent on framework, SDP, and signaling documents. ----- draft-roca-fecframe-rs-00.txt Mark Watson: He informs the group that there may be IPR(s) applying to this I-D. A disclosure will be issued if needed. Q: What is the target use-case for R-S codes? Vincent: R-S are well known, systematic codes, with ideal erasure recovery capabilities. They are well suited when having small blocks is not an issue (usually the case with real-time applications) and for "medium bit rate" flows. Q: What is the encoding/decoding complexity? Vincent: we'll send more information on the list. Marshall: Do you ask this I-D to be WG Item? Vincent: Not yet because many sections are still missing in this version. Our goal is to revise the document for IETF75 first, and then to ask for the group opinion.