|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Hello,Please see the draft meeting minutes below. Many thanks to Colin for taking the notes! I have done minor clarifications, mostly to speakers' names. Let me know if you have corrections to make.
- Pasi ---------------------- DCCP - IETF 76 Hiroshima Tuesday, November 10, 0900 - 1000 Chair: Pasi Sarolahti Note taker: Colin Perkins 15 attendees Status: Pasi presents slides.re draft-ietf-dccp-rtp: Magnus notes that the rtcpssm draft has been updated, and is back with the IESG
re udp encapsulation- Magnus Westerlund: issue will be discussed in tsvarea on Friday. Magnus is split on the idea, he sees the benefit, but also the concern
- Colin Perkins: we have an implementation of the nat encapsulation- Murari Sridharan: lots of people are trying to implement, but the lack of firewall traversal is stopping people. some udp encap would be good.
- Markku Kojo: don't need a spec, just fill out the iana form - Magnus: yes, but a spec is importent.- Colin: why don't we just publish Tom Phelan's draft as experimental? Ask Tom to resubmit it (or I'll do it...)
next steps- Colin + Jukka Manner: the group likely doesn't need to meet, but keep it alive
- Magnus: suggests closing the group, but leaving the list alive DCCP user guide: Jukka presents slides - Pasi: suggests book chapter, articles, etc., as an alternative - Jukka: needs to be more easily accessible than that- Yoshifumi Nishida: should do a sales pitch, highlight applications such as VLC that already support dccp
(unclear that there's interest to move forward with this)- Magnus: would be good to have a document, even if not necessarily complete or final. is there the energy to get it done?
- Colin: problem is that the previous one had some controversial sections (e.g. MUST pad); are we just going to rathole on the same issues, since we don't have any more expertise
- chair: who has read? couple of hands. who's interested in working on this? couple of hands
MulTFRC: - aiming for experimental- Colin: aim of ccids was to allow experimentation; this seems to fit well. congestion control algorithms are done in tsvwg/iccrg; once they're happy we can publish the ccid
- Jukka: does it need to be a wg item?- Magnus: congestion control algorithms need to be reviewed by iccrg to be sure they're safe to deploy; given that the algorithm is okay, doesn't see any real problems publishing another experimetnal ccid
- Magnus: notes that new ccids need IETF consensus to publish - chair: who has read? no hands