IETF 74 RMT WG Minutes
Friday, 27 March 2009
========================


1) Agenda Bashing

   The agenda was accepted without comment.

2) WG Progress

   The WG Chairs presented the following documents' status and
   there was discussion on each:

   a) The publication of the Multicast NACK and FEC Basic Schemes
      Building Blocks documents as RFC 5401 and RFC 5445, respectively,
      was announced.

   b) It was noted that "draft-ietf-rmt-pi-norm-revised" had been submitted for
      publication and the AD review had been completed.  One significant comment
      by the AD was that the NORM dependency on the TFMCC building block should
      be cited as a normative reference even though the TFMCCC RFC has not been
      updated from its Experimental status.  Similarly, it was suggested that
      the ALC specification have a normative reference to the "Web RC"
      congestion control building block.

   c) The "draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised" was submitted for publication and
      is in AD evaluation.

   d) The following additional documents were also submitted for publication
      by the working group chairs:
      - draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-06
      - draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-06
      - draft-ietf-rmt-sec-discussion-03

      It was noted that there was some errata reported for the Experimental FLUTE
      RFC that the revised draft should be checked for.  The working group chairs
      will check this.

   e) The following documents were updated and were discussed in
      separate presentations at this meeting:
	- draft-ietf-rmt-simple-auth-for-alc-norm-01
	- draft-roca-rmt-newfcast-04

3) "TESLA for ALC/NORM"

    The TESLA document has completed MSEC WG last call and is ready for
    publication. (This document is of interest to RMT due to its tie-in to ALC
    and NORM PIs)

4) "Simple Authentication for ALC/NORM"

    This draft has been updated and some comments were received and will be
    addressed in a future update.

5) "FCAST Update"

   The FCAST draft has been updated and the question was posed to the working
   group again with regards to sufficient interest in adding this as a working
   group item.  Magnus Westerlund expressed that some interest is required to
   justify adding this milestone to the working group's goals.  A verbal query
   to meeting attendees was made to see if there were people willing to review
   the document and several raised hands to indicate they would do so. 
   Additionally, an action item was set to have the working group chairs poll
   the list to determine the level of interest.  Attendees were encourage to 
   respond to this poll.  It was commented that the document is fairly
   well-completed since it had been previously formulated as a draft before the
   FLUTE approach was selected by the working group to develop initially.  It
   was also commented that the FCAST document explicitly describes support for
   the NORM protocol as well as ALC while the FLUTE specification solely
   addresses ALC operation.  

6) "LCT Update" - Mark Watson

   Mark presented some notes on the updates to the LCT draft.  It was discussed
   that ALC will cover the fuller description of the security considerations as
   it is the Protocol Instantiation document that uses the  LCT Building Block. 
   Similarly it was noted that the ALC security considerations and mechanisms
   cover most of that needed for the FLUTE specification as FLUTE uses ALC for
   transport.

7) Open Discussion

   The closing of the RMT working group was discussed as the group nears
   completion of its established milestones. Although there are some additional
   RMT areas that may merit attention, it was suggested that a BoF activity
   leading to a new instantiation of the working group may be worthwhile to
   encourage more, new participation in any relevant RMT follow-on activity.  It
   was noted that the current listed milestone dates are outdated and need to be
   updated.

ACTION ITEMS:  

1) Working group documents will be updated to reflect the comments made at 
   the meeting (e.g. normative dependencies on congestion control building
   blocks) by their respective editors.

2) Working group chairs will poll the RMT mailing list to determine support for
   making the FCAST draft a working group item.

3) Brian Adamson will review the revised FLUTE document and verify that it
   doesn't have the same errata issue as was  raised for the Experimental FLUTE
   RFC.

4) The working group chairs will resubmit updated milestone dates for RMT.