Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building Block
draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Magnus Westerlund |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2007-05-04
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2007-05-04
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2007-05-04
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on WGC |
2007-04-26
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on WGC from Waiting on Authors |
2007-04-26
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2007-04-24
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2007-04-24
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2007-04-23
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2007-04-23
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2007-04-23
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2007-04-20
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-04-19 |
2007-04-19
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2007-04-19
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2007-04-19
|
07 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2007-04-19
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-04-19
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] Reference [7] should point to the specification for SHA-1, but is says: > > [7] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", … [Ballot discuss] Reference [7] should point to the specification for SHA-1, but is says: > > [7] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, > April 1992. The belated discussion of Elwyn Davies' Gen-ART Review comments do not seem to have reached closure. However, the authors have agreed that some document changes are needed. |
2007-04-19
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2007-04-19
|
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2007-04-19
|
07 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2007-04-19
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2007-04-18
|
07 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2007-04-18
|
07 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2007-04-18
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-07.txt |
2007-04-17
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2007-04-17
|
07 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sam Hartman |
2007-04-16
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] As noted in the writeup, the current version does not differ significantly from RFC 3452. The changes do not appear to impact … [Ballot comment] As noted in the writeup, the current version does not differ significantly from RFC 3452. The changes do not appear to impact the security considerations, and the document repeats the security considerations from RFC 3452. Since the document was previously approved with these security considerations, I am entering this as a comment rather than a discuss. However, I am uncomfortable with the first sentence in the security considerations section: "Data delivery can be subject to denial-of-service attacks by attackers which send corrupted packets that are accepted as legitimate by receivers. While it is true that data delivery without authentication "can be subject to denial-of-service attacks", there can be other consequences as well. RFC3453 says "[b]y injecting corrupted encoding symbols, they are accepted as valid encoding symbols by a receiver, which *at the very least*, is an effective denial of service attack." (My emphasis on "at the very least".) It would be nice if the security considerations addressed some of the other potential consequences! |
2007-04-16
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2007-04-16
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] Please replace references to MD5 with references to SHA-1 or SHA-256. The belated discussion of Elwyn Davies' Gen-ART Review comments do … [Ballot discuss] Please replace references to MD5 with references to SHA-1 or SHA-256. The belated discussion of Elwyn Davies' Gen-ART Review comments do not seem to have reached closure. However, the authors have agreed that some document changes are needed. |
2007-04-16
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2007-04-16
|
07 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2007-04-16
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Section 1., paragraph 1: > This document is a > product of the IETF RMT WG and follows the general guidelines … [Ballot comment] Section 1., paragraph 1: > This document is a > product of the IETF RMT WG and follows the general guidelines > provided in [5]. We don't typically mention which WGs have produced documents. Section 2., paragraph 3: > It was the stated intent of the RMT working group to re-submit this > specification as an IETF Proposed Standard in due course. We don't typically talk about intentions of WGs or people in our documents. [Editing nits sent to the authors directly.] |
2007-04-16
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Editing nits sent to the authors directly. |
2007-04-16
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2007-04-16
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot discuss] Author's need to respond to comments sent by Gen-Art review: Document: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 11 April 2007 IETF LC End … [Ballot discuss] Author's need to respond to comments sent by Gen-Art review: Document: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 11 April 2007 IETF LC End Date: 12 April 2007 IESG Telechat date: (if known) - Summary: Almost ready for PS. There are some minor issues and editorial nits that should be addressed before it goes to the IESG. Comments: Minor Issues: s6: As well as data packets, para 1 introduces session-control and feedback packets, but then para 4 says that we are specifying stuff about data packets. Session-control and feedback packets disappear into the void. Some words about what is or is not specified about these other kinds of packets would help - even if only to say they are out of scope. s6.1: The implication of the last para is that an 8 bit field is enough to hold the FEC Encoding ID (confirmed more or less in 6.2.3). 2 * 128 possible values may be enough but given that proprietary schemes are allowed and lots of different CDPs might have different schemes, one wonders if this might be constraining - and I see no means of expanding the range. Justify? Also there isn't an experimental range. s6.2.1, para 4: Make it explicit whether the choice of (a) or (b) for the encoding is allowed to be per object or per CDP/FEC Scheme. Even though it is probably obvious, it would be wise to state that if there is an option the CDP has to provide means to transmit which choice has been made. s6.2.1, last para: The statements about the length of the field read as if there has been previous statements about the length of Common Object encodings. There hasn't been. Either reword to cover all lengths here or add words to the earlier paragraphs about the Common Objects. s6.3: I would have expected (I think) that a maximum range for FEC Payload IDs should be given to give a hint to CDPs on the field size needed, but I may be wrong - perhaps some words of explanation as to why it is not needed (if that is the case) would help others. s11: Should we still be, even indirectly, suggesting that MD5 would be a suitable hash functtion? Editorial ========= Global: s/[Aa]n FEC/[Aa] FEC/ (OK, maybe an sounds more euphonious but it is wrong). I'm sure the RFC Editor will have a view. Global: Prefer octet rather than byte. s1: It would be good to explicitly state the section (4.2 I assume) of RFC 3048 ([10]) which this draft covers. s1: Worth expanding RMT for future generations (or remove the note about the wg that produced it). s1, para 6: Helpful to add a forward ref to s4 or s6.1 where Fully/Under-Specified are defined. s4, para 1: 'A FEC code is a valuable component...': I am not sure if this the best phraseology. Maybe: A FEC coding scheme is a valuable component... Actually I found the term 'FEC code' somewhat distracting throughout - it doesn't sound quite right when referring to the adjuncts needed to provide the extra FEC information and the encoding used to generate them. s4, para 4: s/ancilliary/anciliary/ (last instance) s5, para 1: Might be good to refer explicitly to s3.2 of RFC 2357. s6.1, para 5: s/FEc/FEC/ s6.2.2, paras 2 and 3: It would be better to start these paras with 'Any' rather than 'The'. At present it is very easy to read paras 2 and 3 as contradictory. s6.2.4, last para: s/EXT-FTI/EXT_FTI/. Also need to expand LCT acronym. s6.3, last para: The term 'systematic FEC codes' appears to be a term of art that is not defined. Explanation would be appreciated. s11: s/to many receivers/at many receivers/ |
2007-04-16
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-04-13
|
07 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Additional Comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will perform the following actions: Action 1: Update the references to the registry "Reliable Mutlicast … IANA Additional Comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will perform the following actions: Action 1: Update the references to the registry "Reliable Mutlicast Transport (RMT) FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs" on the IANA assignments page located at http://www.iana.org/numbers.html The old references are: Encoding ID's RFC3452 RFC required (section 8.1) Instance ID's RFC3452 FCFS (section 8.1) The new references are: Encoding ID's RFC-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06 IETF Consensus (section 12.1) Instance ID's RFC-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06 FCFS (section 12.1) Action 2: Update the reference in the registry "Reliable Mutlicast Transport (RMT) FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs" located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rmt-fec-parameters The old reference was: RMT FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs - per [RFC3452] The new reference will be: RMT FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs - per [RFC-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06] We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. -- [ NOTE: This document does not mention the name of the existing registry. The document should get updated to state the name of the registry, "Reliable Mutlicast Transport (RMT) FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs". ] |
2007-04-12
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-04-11
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2007-04-11
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-04-19 by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-04-11
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2007-04-11
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Ballot has been issued by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-04-11
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Created "Approve" ballot |
2007-04-02
|
07 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Last Call Comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will perform the following actions: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA … IANA Last Call Comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will perform the following actions: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the following registry "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Encodings" located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Initial contents of this registry are two subregistries (see Actions 2 and 3). [RFC-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06] Action 2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in the following registry "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Encodings" create a new sub-registry "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" [RFC-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06] Initial contents of this sub-registry will be: Value Name Reference [0-255] ------- ---- --------- [0-127] Reserved to IANA [RFC-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06] for Fully-Specified FEC Schemes [128-255] Reserved to IANA [RFC-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06] for non-Fully-Specified FEC Schemes Action 3: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in the following registry "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Encodings" create a new sub-registry "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance" [RFC-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06] Initial contents of this sub-registry will be: Encoding Value Instance Number Name Contact Reference [128-255] [0-65535] -------------- --------------- ---- ------- --------- [0-127] Invalid [RFC-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06] [128-255] [0-65535] Reserved to IANA [RFC-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06] We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2007-03-30
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Nicolas Williams |
2007-03-30
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Nicolas Williams |
2007-03-28
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2007-03-28
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2007-03-22
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Last Call was requested by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-03-22
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-03-22
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2007-03-22
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2007-03-22
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2007-03-22
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2007-03-22
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06.txt |
2007-02-26
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-02-26
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Found one unused reference. |
2007-02-23
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2007-02-23
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-05.txt |
2007-02-05
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-02-05
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Review comments sent to WG mailing list and authors. |
2006-12-18
|
07 | Dinara Suleymanova | PROTO Write-up (1.a) Document Shepherd is Lorenzo Vicisano, who has personally reviewed this version of the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to … PROTO Write-up (1.a) Document Shepherd is Lorenzo Vicisano, who has personally reviewed this version of the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) The document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members. An earlier version of this document was approved as Experimental RFC 3452. The rationale for resubmitting this document as Proposed Standard is described at the end of Section 1 of the document. (1.c) No additional reviews needed. (1.d) The Document Shepherd does not have any concerns or issues with this document. (1.e) This document represent a solid consensus of the RMT WG. Most of the rest of the RMT WG specifications use this document as a fundamental building block. (1.f) No notable discontent has been reported about this document. (1.g) The Document Shepherd has personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits. (1.h) The document has split its references into normative and informative. All Normative references are in "BCP" state. (1.i) The Document Shepherd has verified the document IANA consideration section that is consistent with the body of the document. The document creates new registries and defines allocation procedures for future dependent registries. Reasonable names are suggested. Note: this document takes over the registries already defined through RFC 3452. All values assigned under the RFC 3452 registries are compatible with the current specification an should be preserved. (1.j) The documents contains no section written in formal language. (1.k) Document Announcement Write-Up follows. Technical Summary This document describes how to use Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes to efficiently provide and/or augment reliability for data transport. This document defines a framework for the definition of the information that needs to be communicated in order to use an FEC code for delivering content, in addition to the encoded data itself, and for definition of formats and codes for communication of that information. The procedures for specifying new FEC codes, defining the information communication requirements associated with those codes and registering them with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) are also described. This document is a building block upon which other specification of the RMT WG are based. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. Document Quality A previous version of this document was reviewed by the IESG and published as RFC 3452. The current version does not differ significantly from RFC 3452 and it allows backward compatible implementation of known protocols that used RFC 3452. The content of this document is the base for a number of existing protocol implementations, both complying to this version of the document and to the previous version documented in RFC 3452. There are multiple independent implementations of 2 different protocols, known as NORM and ALC, that use the specification in this document. Different implementations of each protocols are interoperable. ALC is also adopted in the 3GPP standard TS26.346. Lorenzo Vicisano is the Document Shepherd. |
2006-12-18
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Magnus Westerlund |
2006-12-18
|
07 | Dinara Suleymanova | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Dinara Suleymanova |
2006-09-07
|
07 | (System) | State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system |
2006-09-06
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-04.txt |
2006-08-05
|
07 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system |
2006-08-05
|
07 | (System) | Document has expired |
2006-04-03
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Shepherding AD has been changed to Magnus Westerlund from Allison Mankin |
2006-03-04
|
07 | Allison Mankin | Draft Added by Allison Mankin in state AD is watching |
2006-01-30
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-03.txt |
2005-10-20
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-02.txt |
2005-09-07
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-01.txt |
2005-05-03
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-00.txt |