= Welcome, Agenda Bash =

*Chair 5min

*Agenda approved

= Framework status update =

*draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-14

*Ali Begen 5min

*one DISCUSS left

**concerned about interoperability and mandatory security scheme

**proposed text change to address comments

**waiting for response from AD

**AD is ok with the text

**AD (Dave Harrington): missing discussion in document: operation and management

***how

***Dave: not to ask how to pick one, but maybe add a requirement what the FEC scheme needs to add. 

***Greg: This is addressed by the nature of the repair symbols

***Ali: 

****1-to-1 feedback possible, 1-to-many feedback may not be impossible (addressed in FEC) 

****FEC packets are not essential, if they do not work, the service is not broken

****If RTCP feedback is available, post processing to evaluate operation possible

***Dave: 

****no mandating of a protocol is necessary

****Still necessary to know who does the management: application or operator?

***Ali: not defined who uses for example RTCP feedback, but it is typically application issue

***Yacoob: You may use RFC5725 (draft says RFC3550 - should be changed), but it may not be available in all operations

***Dave: 

****if people want to do interoperability, they need to have recommendations. How do we get interoperability across vendors

****you may do it on FEC Framework level or on scheme level

***Ali: preferred on framework

***Vincent: Do we have to mandate a FEC scheme to make this work?

***Dave: No, do not mandate FEC scheme

*Yacoob: like the security section, will provide some small feedback on this. 

*Greg: group encouraged to comment and get this approved to make move the other documents

= Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme =

*draft-roca-fecframe-simple-rs-01

*Vincent Roca 5min

**no updates on core

**addition of security considerations and  and operations and management

*document ready for WGLC - take it to list

*no comments

= Simple LDPC-Staircase FEC Scheme =

* draft-roca-fecframe-ldpc-01

*Vincent Roca 5min

*ready for wg-last call

*Dave: You added O&M, does it talk about management? 

*Vincent: No, so it will be called "operations" only

*Yacoob: What do you mean by "does not consider RTP framing of FEC repair packets"

**Vincent: draft does not look at the details of source flow and produce additional repair packets

**Yacoob: Are the repair packets multiplexed into the RTP flow or do we have a separate flow (sequence number, etc.)

**Vincent: after FEC processing you have a modified source flow and you have one or multiple repair flows. These are not RTP flows.

**Yacoob: understood - so RTP is hidden to the network

**Yacoob: If you want to use RTP, how to do this - give me a new document to do this.

**Vincent: This discussion is in the FECFRAME document (in Operation and Management document)

**Thomas: RTP framing for some codes exist, separate FEC scheme, RTP flow for repair packets is separate from source flow, association through SDP possible

*Yacoob: Systematic or not, but do you change the RTP packet

**Vincent: all codes are systematic, but the source packet may still be modified

= RTP Payload Format for Reed Solomon FEC =

*draft-galanos-fecframe-rtp-reedsolomon

*Vincent Roca 5min

**accepted as WG item, but not visible yet - needs to be approved

**addition of section on security as well as operations and management considerations

**still needs some significant work

= WG Shutdown schedule =

*Chair 5min

*Remaining and any new FEC schemes move to AVT

*Question: Where in AVT, as four new groups

**Greg to check which AVT group

**proposed for automated reply for list that this is moved to avt

*Yacoob: What about IANA registration?

**Greg: discussed on FECFRAME document

*for new FEC schemes, put together an expert review team (include AVT and RMT)

**this should be added to the FEC FRAMEWORK document

*may be the last WG meeting