From stewe@stewe.org Fri Apr 1 03:45:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554533A67F5; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 03:45:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.699, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Q+n+EXsCBEM; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 03:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFF73A67D3; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 03:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.83.67] (unverified [130.129.83.67]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 4736-1743317 for multiple; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:47:03 +0200 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:46:58 +0200 From: Stephan Wenger To: , , , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Incoming liaison statement from MPEG Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3384506822_481335" X-Originating-IP: 130.129.83.67 X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org Subject: [Fecframe] Incoming liaison statement from MPEG X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:45:26 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3384506822_481335 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi all, We have received a liaison statement from the MPEG meeting that took place last week. No action is requested from us. They have an initial draft for the profiles of their HTTP streaming project known as "DASH", which is in DIS state. In short, my reading is that they are currently considering one "simple" and one more complex profile for each MPEG-2 TS and ISO file format based mux structure, for a total of four profiles. The statement should appear on the IETF statement tracker shortly, but if you need a copy urgently, please send me a private email and I will forward. Thanks, Stephan --B_3384506822_481335 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

We have re= ceived a liaison statement from the MPEG meeting that took place last week. = No action is requested from us.

They have an initial draft f= or the profiles of their HTTP streaming project known as "DASH", which is in= DIS state. In short, my reading is that they are currently considerin= g one "simple" and one more complex profile for each MPEG-2 TS and ISO file = format based mux structure, for a total of four profiles. The statemen= t should appear on the IETF statement tracker shortly, but if you need a cop= y urgently, please send me a private email and I will forward.

Tha= nks,

Stephan

--B_3384506822_481335-- From ietfdbh@comcast.net Tue Apr 19 16:06:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036B9E0822 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:06:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NVr2u4H4a9XB for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.80]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490BFE0814 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Zazz1g0030xGWP858b6BJb; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:06:11 +0000 Received: from davidPC ([67.189.235.106]) by omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Zb6B1g00B2JQnJT3Yb6BZg; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:06:11 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:06:00 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7600.16776 Thread-index: Acv+5ll9WpQJ5KYoTbmLQcd2w3Idbw== Cc: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] AD review: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:06:16 -0000 Hi, I have performed AD Review on draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04. -- Technical and/or process concerns: 1) please check id-nits. There are some reported problems with references, and example addresses. 2) Why is this document being requested to be published as Experimental? Is there a lack of WG consensus for this design, or the protocols discussed? If so, the concerns that prevent consensus from being reached should be discussed, probably with an explanation in the Introduction that this is an Experimental proposal, not a standard. 3) In section 5.1, provide a reference explaining the UDP port 9875. If this is IANA-assigned, please describe this in the IANA Considerations section. 4) In the last paragraph of 5.1, when a delete has been received, the receiver SHOULD no longer use the config info. Why is this not a MUST? 5) in 5.2, the assertion is made that using a generic protocol is "under investigation and may be covered by a separate document." Where is this under investigation? What document do you think will cover this? 6) It helps IANA if you identify by URL the registry you want modified (http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtsp-parameters/rtsp-parameters.xml RTSP/1.0 Option Tags), and include the specific fields that require filling. 7) The IANA considerations refer to section 4.2.2, but there is no section 4.2.2 in this document. Editorial comments: "Independent of what all encoding formats supported by an FEC scheme," should be reworded. section 5 uses a numbering scheme of (i), (b), (c). I suspect the first should be (a). I don't understand the topology pictured in Figure 1. I understand the text, but the figure doesn't convey the topology very well. The "simpler method" description in section 5.1.1 could use some English language cleanup. David Harrington Director, IETF Transport Area ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf) dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com +1 603 828 1401 (cell)