headers
Lorenzo Vicisano | 4 Feb 2005 23:19
Picon
Favicon

IETF meeting agenda items

Dear RMTers,

If you have discussion items that you would like to schedule for
the upcoming March IETF in Minneapolis, please reply to this email.

To my knowledge, there has been very little WG activity since the last
IETF, hence, depending on the result of this call for agenda items,
this meeting might not be necessary. Feel free to comment.

	thank you,
	The Chairs.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Internet-Drafts | 16 Feb 2005 16:25
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Reliable Multicast Transport Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Raptor Forward Error Correction
	Author(s)	: M. Luby, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-00.txt
	Pages		: 32
	Date		: 2005-2-15
	
This document describes the systematic Raptor forward error
   correction code and its application to reliable delivery of data
   objects.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-00.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lorenzo Vicisano | 24 Feb 2005 03:07
Picon
Favicon

no meeting at the Minneapolis IETF

All,

It appears that this meeting won't be necessary hence I asked
the IETF secretariat to disregard my request for a slot.

I'm hoping that we will use the time between now and the next IETF
to move our work forward as quickly as possible.

Attached is my list of priority tasks. Please comment. 

 - Submit TFMCC and PGMCC to the IESG (they both went through WG last
   call).
 - Revise the FEC BB to address the problems encountered while trying to
   produce new FEC IDs.
 - Revise the FEC BB to allow the partial re-use of our work for
   multimedia stream protection.
 - Re-submit all our specification for publication in the
   standard-track category.

	thanks you,
	Lorenzo

On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 02:19:47PM -0800, Lorenzo Vicisano wrote:
> Dear RMTers,
> 
> If you have discussion items that you would like to schedule for
> the upcoming March IETF in Minneapolis, please reply to this email.
> 
> To my knowledge, there has been very little WG activity since the last
> IETF, hence, depending on the result of this call for agenda items,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Mark Pullen | 26 Feb 2005 21:36
Picon

Re: no meeting at the Minneapolis IETF

Lorenzo,

I did not see the WG last call for TFMCC, probably because
at some point my rmt email subscription stopped working.

My laboratory is making active use of TFMCC. We have
identified to the TFMCC authors some cases where we
believe it does not come adequately close to providing
for performance that is fair to TCP. This is based on
extensive studies using ns2 models. We'll be happy to
continue to work with the TFMCC authors on this. I would
question taking TFMCC forward until this issue is resolved.

I will be in Minneapolis and could meet with you on this
even though the RMT slot has been cancelled.

Mark

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lorenzo Vicisano wrote:

> All,
>
> It appears that this meeting won't be necessary hence I asked
> the IETF secretariat to disregard my request for a slot.
>
> I'm hoping that we will use the time between now and the next IETF
> to move our work forward as quickly as possible.
>
> Attached is my list of priority tasks. Please comment.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Lorenzo Vicisano | 2 Mar 2005 18:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: no meeting at the Minneapolis IETF

Mark,

> I did not see the WG last call for TFMCC, probably because
> at some point my rmt email subscription stopped working.
> 
> My laboratory is making active use of TFMCC. We have
> identified to the TFMCC authors some cases where we
> believe it does not come adequately close to providing
> for performance that is fair to TCP. This is based on
> extensive studies using ns2 models. We'll be happy to
> continue to work with the TFMCC authors on this. I would
> question taking TFMCC forward until this issue is resolved.

thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. Could you
please coordinate with the TFMCC authors to address this and
let us know ?

> I will be in Minneapolis and could meet with you on this
> even though the RMT slot has been cancelled.

I will be there too.

	Lorenzo

> 
> Mark
> 
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lorenzo Vicisano wrote:
> 
> > All,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mark Pullen | 2 Mar 2005 21:05
Picon

Re: no meeting at the Minneapolis IETF

Lorenzo,

Coordination with the TFMCC authors is ongoing. We have
been exchanging emails since last July. Because we are
all busy, it takes a while to turn them around, but the
process continues between Joerg Widmer and myself. We
believe the TFMCC approach is fundamentally sound, but it
needs some more work if the results are to come within
a factor of two of actual TCP performance.

See you in Minneapolis.

Mark

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Lorenzo Vicisano wrote:

> Mark,
>
> > I did not see the WG last call for TFMCC, probably because
> > at some point my rmt email subscription stopped working.
> >
> > My laboratory is making active use of TFMCC. We have
> > identified to the TFMCC authors some cases where we
> > believe it does not come adequately close to providing
> > for performance that is fair to TCP. This is based on
> > extensive studies using ns2 models. We'll be happy to
> > continue to work with the TFMCC authors on this. I would
> > question taking TFMCC forward until this issue is resolved.
>
> thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. Could you
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane