[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ULE Extension Headers
Hi Art,
I apologize, hope there is a possible misunderstanding. I was supporting (b)
as well.
<snip>
>(And I thought some wanted to define the following structure when the
>bit is set - an activity to which I do not think there were
>objections.)
<snip>
which has caused misunderstanding.. to define the structure for extension bit
is set.
Sorry for inconvenience again.
Best Regards,
William.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk [mailto:owner-ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk] On
Behalf Of Allison, Art
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:56 PM
To: 'ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk'
Subject: RE: ULE Extension Headers
William
I do not see how referring me to old posts without taking a position
facilitates progress. I was not and am not attempting to reopen discussion. It
seemed that it was time for preferences to be expressed. Given the
clarifications and lack of continued objection; it seemed to me that maybe
(b) had enough support. So calling for a measurement of consensus seemed in
order.
The alternatives that were clearly set forth by our esteemed Chair and are:
'a', 'b', 'c' or 'no choice'.
So if each of us that cares asserts "I prefer (x)" or "for the reasons I have
previously posted I prefer (y)" we provide data upon which a way forward can
be based. It is most reasonable to interpret silence is "I don't care".
I stated my preference. I urge helping the Chair to avoid having to report 'no
choice' by stating yours.
Art
::{)>
Art Allison
Director Advanced Engineering
NAB
1771 N St NW
Washington DC 20036
202 429 5418
-----Original Message-----
From: William StanisLaus [mailto:williams77@rediffmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:21 PM
To: ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Subject: Re: ULE Extension Headers
Hi Art,
Please refer the previous post on definition to the proposal (b) which
describes the ext. bit.
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/ip-dvb/archive/msg00584.html
Best Regards,
William.
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 Allison, Art wrote :
>Taking one....
>(1) ULE Extension Headers - We have described a number of ways we can
>encode extra headers associated with a specific SNDU, that a receiver
>may optionally ignore without having to discard a PDU. However, we have
>yet to agree if this is needed and which way is best. The most
>promising seem to be:
> (a) use a 16-bit type field to indicate "extension header follows"
> (b) use a 1-bit flag to indicate "extension header follows"
> (c) the assignment of type field values to identify each
> individual extension header.
>
>I recommend we add only a "place holder note" in the next revision of
>the ULE draft (to be released in about one-two weeks) which says the WG
>could possibly consider future extension headers (if needed), and
>continue this discussion for the next revision (this can happen quickly
>if the WG gets consensus, at the moment I see too many options and
>unclear concrete examples).
>
>----
>I thought discussion faded to silence after I <effectively>
>acknowledged
(b)
>was ok with me. (And I thought some wanted to define the following
structure
>when the bit is set - an activity to which I do not think there were
>objections.)
>So maybe we have acceptance of an approach for this item?
>
>Art
>::{)>
>Art Allison
>Director Advanced Engineering
>NAB
>1771 N St NW
>Washington DC 20036
>202 429 5418
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk]
>Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:51 AM
>To: ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
>Subject: ULE : Encryption Support, FEC, and Extension headers.
>
>
>
>There's been a lot of discussion on the list about three related topics:
> (i) The (potential/actual) need for FEC and Encryption
> (ii) How to implement headers in ULE to support Encryption
> (iii) Whether ULE should support optional extension headers.
>
>I don't wnat to stop any of this debate, but I would like to try and
>put a marker in the email threads so that those not following the
>detail of the various discussions, have a picture of where the group
>seems to have consensus.
>
>So here's my recommendation as WG Chair:
>
>(1) ULE Extension Headers - We have described a number of ways we can
>encode extra headers associated with a specific SNDU, that a receiver
>may optionaly ignore without having to discard a PDU. However, we have
>yet to agree if this is needed and which way is best. The most
>promising seem to be:
> (a) use a 16-bit type field to indicate "extension header follows"
> (b) use a 1-bit flag to indicate "extension header follows"
> (c) the assignment of type field values to identify each
> individual extension header.
>
>I recommend we add only a "place holder note" in the next revision of
>the ULE draft (to be released in about one-two weeks) which says the WG
>could possibly consider future extension headers (if needed), and
>continue this discussion for the next revision (this can happen quickly
>if the WG gets consensus, at the moment I see too many options and
>unclear concrete examples).
>
>(2) FEC and Encryption, the requirements for these must be clearly
>defined in an Internet Draft (reference could be made to other, e.g.
>ETSI documents). This could be one or more individual drafts - or by
>contribution of IETF-style text for the "ipdvb requirements" ID. This
>will assure, we have a common basis for discussion, either on the
>mailing list or (if issues do prove hard to resolve in this way) at the
>San Diego IETF. I'm anxious ULE collects only *useful* options.
>Note: These individual ID's could be very short (a few pages) and could
>finally be "combined" into the ULE (and/or requirements) text, should
>they be accepted by the group.
>
>(3) After production of a WG ULE ID, I'd like the WG to progress the
>charter item of adopting a requirements WG Internet Draft. This
>document must provide background, identify use-cases, and
>implementation options; leading to appropriate recommendations. We can
>either start from the existing (somewhat imperfect/incomplete)
>requirements draft:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fair-ipdvb-req-04.txt
>
>....or make one (or more) new ones. Thoughts?
>
>Gorry Fairhurst
>(ipdvb WG Chair)
>