Skip to main content

Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block
draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
11 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Robert Sparks
2009-09-03
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-09-02
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-09-02
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-09-02
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-09-02
11 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2009-09-01
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-09-01
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-09-01
11 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-09-01
11 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-09-01
11 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2009-08-31
11 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Robert Sparks
2009-08-31
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-11.txt
2009-08-31
11 Magnus Westerlund State Change Notice email list have been change to rmt-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised@tools.ietf.org from rmt-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-rmt-lct-revised@tools.ietf.org
2009-08-31
11 Magnus Westerlund State Change Notice email list have been change to rmt-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-rmt-lct-revised@tools.ietf.org from rmt-chairs@tools.ietf.org, mark@digitalfountain.com
2009-08-14
11 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-08-13
2009-08-13
11 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-08-12
11 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-08-12
11 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
1) Shouldn't this document be using the pre5378 notice?

2) I'm confused by the acknowledgements listing of the authors of 3450 instead of …
[Ballot discuss]
1) Shouldn't this document be using the pre5378 notice?

2) I'm confused by the acknowledgements listing of the authors of 3450 instead of 3451?
2009-08-12
11 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-08-12
11 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2009-08-12
11 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-08-11
11 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-08-10
11 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-08-10
11 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-10
11 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-08-10
11 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-08-06
11 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-08-02
11 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-08-02
11 Adrian Farrel [Ballot comment]
It is nice to see an idea run as Experimental and then brought to the Standards Track. Thanks for following through with this.
2009-07-23
11 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Magnus Westerlund
2009-07-23
11 Magnus Westerlund Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-08-13 by Magnus Westerlund
2009-07-23
11 Magnus Westerlund Note field has been cleared by Magnus Westerlund
2009-07-13
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-07-13
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-10.txt
2009-07-03
11 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Catherine Meadows.
2009-04-17
11 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Magnus Westerlund
2009-04-17
11 Magnus Westerlund Last call comments received that requires update draft.
2009-04-17
11 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup by Magnus Westerlund
2009-04-17
11 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2009-04-17
11 Magnus Westerlund Ballot has been issued by Magnus Westerlund
2009-04-17
11 Magnus Westerlund Created "Approve" ballot
2009-04-15
11 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2009-04-09
11 Amanda Baber
IANA questions/comments:

- We're not clear on how this should be organized. Should
all registrations be placed in a single registry? Or would you
prefer …
IANA questions/comments:

- We're not clear on how this should be organized. Should
all registrations be placed in a single registry? Or would you
prefer two or four sub-registries?

- Should "ietf:rmt" and "ietf:rmt:lct" be registered somewhere?


Upon approval of this document, IANA will create the following
registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: RMT LCT Header Extension Types
|ietf:rmt:lct:headerExtensionTypes:|Range| Registration Procedures | Reference
+----------------------------------+-----------+----------------------+
| variableLength:ietf | 0-63 |IETF Review | [RFC-rmt-bb-lct-revised-09]
| variableLength:any | 64-127 |Specification required| [RFC-rmt-bb-lct-revised-09]
| fixedLength:ietf | 128-191 |IETF Review | [RFC-rmt-bb-lct-revised-09]
| fixedLength:any | 192-255 |Specification required| [RFC-rmt-bb-lct-revised-09]

Initial contents of this registry will be:

Value | Name | Reference |
-------+----------+--------------------+
0 | EXT_NOP | [RFC-rmt-bb-lct-revised-09]
1 | EXT_AUTH | [RFC-rmt-bb-lct-revised-09]
2 | EXT_TIME | [RFC-rmt-bb-lct-revised-09]
3-255 | Unassigned


We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.
2009-04-03
11 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2009-04-03
11 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2009-04-01
11 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-04-01
11 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-04-01
11 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Magnus Westerlund
2009-04-01
11 Magnus Westerlund Last Call was requested by Magnus Westerlund
2009-04-01
11 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-04-01
11 (System) Last call text was added
2009-04-01
11 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-03-27
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-03-27
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-09.txt
2009-03-27
11 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Magnus Westerlund
2009-03-27
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-03-27
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-08.txt
2009-01-23
11 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Magnus Westerlund
2009-01-23
11 Magnus Westerlund Review sent to WG list and authors.
2009-01-22
11 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Magnus Westerlund
2008-12-15
11 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Cindy Morgan
2008-12-15
11 Cindy Morgan
Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-07
intended for publication in the "Proposed Standard" category.

This writeup complies with RFC 4858


  (1.a)  Who is the Document …
Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-07
intended for publication in the "Proposed Standard" category.

This writeup complies with RFC 4858


  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Document Shepherd is Brian Adamson, who has personally reviewed this
version of the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to the
IESG for publication.  However, there are 3 minor "typos" in this document that
need to be fixed as part of the publication process.  These are described
below.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document had adequate review by key WG members.  The document has been
reviewed by multiple WG members and has been updated to reflect their
comments.  There are non unresolved issues.  The Experimental RFC3940 upon
which this revision is based was thoroughly reviewed.  The differences
between this revision and the original document are relatively minor.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

No additional reviews needed.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

No concerns.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

This document represent a solid consensus of the RMT WG.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No discontent of significant concern have been raised about this
document.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The Document Shepherd has personally verified that the document satisfies all
ID nits.

However there are 3 minor "typos" that need to be fixed:

A) There is a typo in section 5.2.1:

"There are two formats for Header Extension fields, as depicted in
Figure 2.  The first format is used for variable-length extensions,
with Header Extension Type (HET) values between 0 and 127.  The
second format is used for fixed length (one 32-bit word) extensions,
using HET values from 127 to 255."

The end of the last sentence here should instead be "from 128 to 255".

B) The 1st sentence of the 4th paragraph of the "push model" description
in Section 4.2 says "There are several features ALC provides ..."  This
should instead read "There are several features LCT provides ..." 

C) The center header on each page reads "LCT Buliding Block" but instead
should be "LCT Building Block"  (i.e. "building" is misspelled).


draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-07 is intended for publication in the
"Proposed Standard" category.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document splits its references into normative and
informative. The normative reference are in RFC published status.
None of the normative reference is a downward reference.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The IANA consideration section exists.  IANA requirements are clearly
described and are consistent with the other documents requiring assignments
from the "ietf:rmt" name-space.  All assignment requests are in compliance
with RFC2434 and the appropriate IETF actions are specified.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

The documents contains no section written in formal language.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
            For example, was there controversy about particular points
            or were there decisions where the consensus was
            particularly rough?

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
            what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
            Review, on what date was the request posted?

          Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
            experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
            in this document are .'

Document Announcement Write-Up for draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-07 follows.

Technical Summary

  This document is an RMT Building Block that specifies protocol headers and
  procedures useful for building a reliable multicast transport protocol that
  can employ packet-level forward error correction (FEC) coding to enable
  massively- scalable, reliable, unidirectional network data transport without
  requiring receiver feedback. Layered Coding Transport is specifically
  designed to support protocols using IP multicast, but also provides support
  to protocols that use unicast.  Layered Coding Transport is compatible with
  congestion control that provides multiple rate delivery to receivers.

Working Group Summary

    There is consensus in the WG to publish this documents.

Document Quality

    The document is of high quality and has been subject to extensive
    review in its Internet Draft and Experimental RFC forms.  The
    revised draft represents a small number of changes from the original
    Experimental RFC 3451.
   
    Open source implementations of the LCT protocol are available and
    considerable experience in using this protocol has been accumulated.
    The protocol has been adopted by the Digital Video Broadcasting (DBV)
    industry consortium for content delivery.

    The content of this document was already reviewed and approved for
    publication as experimental RFC 3451. This document contains minor
    technical modifications.

Personnel

    Brian Adamson is the Document Shepherd.
    Magnus Westerlund is the Responsible Area Director.
2008-07-30
11 Cindy Morgan State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by Cindy Morgan
2008-07-12
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-07.txt
2008-05-19
11 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2008-05-19
11 (System) Document has expired
2007-11-17
11 (System) State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system
2007-11-16
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-06.txt
2007-08-27
11 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2007-08-27
11 (System) Document has expired
2007-02-24
11 (System) State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system
2007-02-23
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-05.txt
2006-12-25
11 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2006-12-25
11 (System) Document has expired
2006-06-23
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-04.txt
2006-04-19
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-03.txt
2006-04-03
11 Magnus Westerlund Shepherding AD has been changed to Magnus Westerlund from Allison Mankin
2006-03-05
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-02.txt
2006-03-04
11 Allison Mankin Draft Added by Allison Mankin in state AD is watching
2006-01-25
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-01.txt
2005-07-12
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-00.txt