===================================
FECFrame WG Meeting - Greg Shepherd
     Thursday, July 29, 2010
 IETF 78, Maastricht, Netherlands
===================================


0) Welcome / Agenda Bashing (Greg Shepherd)


1) draft-roca-fecframe-rs (Vincent Roca)
----------------------------------------

Vincent explains this I-D complements the RTP for Reed-Solomon I-D, in the sense that this one is for situations where backward compatibility with terminal not supporting FECFRAME is not an issue. He then explains that modifications W.R.T. -03 are motivated by the results of constructive off-line discussions with Mike Luby. These modifications consist in having always a single symbol per ADU (1st recommendation) and in having the same FEC payload ID for both source and repair symbols, with k being included in both cases (2nd recommendation). Additionally, the E (symbol size) is now either set for the whole session or defined per block, depending on a flag in the FSSI.


Marshall: Could you develop what you mean with the IPR discussion?
Vincent: The discussion we had on the fecframe mailing list has been followed off-line, with Greg and David in copy. This discussion resulted in Mike making two recommendations. Version -03 takes these recommendations into account.
David (summarized): One has to be careful with this kind of discussion, if done in an IETF context. Great care must be made in order to keep in line with the RFC3979 rules. There are limits and going beyond those limits is not recommended. The licensing conditions are also an element to take into account.
Vincent: Agreed. However you are referring to the other off-line discussion (RFC5170). In this case (RS for FECFRAME) the situation has been quickly clarified.

Greg: Should this be WG Item?
Room: 3 people yes, no objection.
Go to list to confirm.

David: Is it in line with current charter?
Answer: implicitly yes (FECFRAME's goal is to specify FEC scheme), but we can make it explicit.


2) Current Drafts Status (Greg)
-------------------------------

Several drafts are currently blocked on normative references.

Concerning the draft-ietf-fecframe-req (an old "requirements" draft) which is now expired, should we revive it? Its goal was to enable the development of other WG drafts. Its content is now integrated in the framework document, with many improvements. 

David Oran: I suggest either to publish it as Historical (rather than Informative) or to drop it.
Room: Consensus to drop the document altogether.
Go to the list to confirm.


3) Updated WG Milestones (Greg)
-------------------------------

Ali Begen: FYI I have a document in MMUSIC (rfc4756bis) on FEC grouping semantics that is in the RFC editor queue.

Ali: There is the 1D2D FEC draft that has been frozen for some time. It was for the AVT forum and SMPTE. We are now working together because they want to use it as a starting point. 
Colin P.: I'm not sure who should write the draft, but AVT should review it.
Marshall: Yes, this draft should come out.
Ali: The draft can be revived, it's almost complete. We just need a couple of changes in the header and a few changes in it, and then we could WGLC it.
Marshall: This would become a normative reference in an SMPTE document that the VSF (not AVT) prepares.

Dave: So the FECFRAME WG could be closed soon.