I haven't seen any corrections to the draft minutes so far. Unless
there are any further comments by next Wednesday, the minutes at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/minutes/dccp.txt
will become the final version for the proceedings.
Thanks!
- Pasi
On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
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
