40 likes | 285 Views
IETF#70 – 3-7 December 2007 Reliable Multicast Transport draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-06 draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-05 draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-04. Mark Watson. Layered Coding Transport draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-06. Changes from -05: None Issues:
E N D
IETF#70 – 3-7 December 2007Reliable Multicast Transportdraft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-06draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-05draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-04 Mark Watson
Layered Coding Transportdraft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-06 • Changes from -05: • None • Issues: • Allocation rules for LCT Header Extension Types • Current: “IETF Consensus” • Proposed (by Mark): “Specification Required” • Reason: Allows other SDOs to define LCT Header Extensions quickly, but only if they publish them (case-in-point DVB Content Download service) • Ready for WGLC ?
Asynchonous Layered Codingdraft-ietf-pi-alc-revised-05 • Changes from -04 • None • Ready for WGLC ?
FEC Basic Schemesdraft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-04 • Changes since -03 • Proposal from Mark for Instance-Specific FEC Object Transmission Information • Rationalle: • without this, these schemes can only be used for FEC codes where the OTI matches exactly that defined in the scheme - no possibility for extentions • Probably means theses schemes will not be used • FEC Building block provides for Scheme-specific OTI field. Schemes can define Instance-specific field within this. • Cannot be introduced later. • Ready for WGLC ?