Subject: [nwcrg] RG Item Call for Adoption for "BATS Coding Scheme for Multi-hop Data Transport"

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 16:00:23 +0200

Dear all,

We would like to start a RG-Item call for adoption for the following I-D:
	"BATS Coding Scheme for Multi-hop Data Transport"
	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-nwcrg-bats/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-nwcrg-bats/>

This document has been around and discussed in our RG for 2 years, it’s time to decide.

The call will end on Monday Sept. 28th (3 weeks).

Please read it, provide feedback, and tell us whether you are in favour of adopting it and if
you would agree to review if accepted. Thanks in advance.

Regards,

  Marie-Jose and Vincent

---

From: Emmanuel Lochin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 09:49:32 +0200

Dear all,

I already did a review end of July but may be it hasn't been 
well-received. Please find it below :

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject: 	[nwcrg] Review draft-yang-nwcrg-bats-03
Date: 	Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:00:22 +0200
From: 	Emmanuel Lochin <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked]

Dear all,

After carefully reading "BATS Coding Scheme for Multi-hop Data 
Transport", I have no specific comment on it.
The draft is well explained and self-contained. It appears almost clear 
to me concerning the implementation of BATS.

Just some slight comments/questions :

- Being a little bit fussy, I would just rephrase "Existing network 
protocols like TCP/IP use end-to-end retransmission and 
store-and-forward at the relays" by "Existing transport protocols like 
TCP use end-to-end retransmission while network protocols such as IP 
might enable store-and-forward at the relays". I understand that you 
want to point out that TCP/IP has the same objective that the 
combination of both inner/outer BATS codes while less efficient over 
multihop;

- Correct "Suppose that a pseudorandom number generator Rand() which 
generate an unsigned integer of 32 bit" -> "generates";

I understand that you need one BATS session per flow at the outer code 
and you write that "The inner code comprises (random) linear network 
coding applied on the coded packets belonging to the same batch.". So my 
questions are:

- Does a batch similar to an encoding window as defined in RFC8406?

- Does the inner code must differentiate each microflow before 
re-encoding? If yes, without re-encoding (pure e2e exchange) does the 
Batch_ID field still mandatory?

- Is there a relationship between the e2e microflow and the Batch_ID? 
Meaning a Batch_ID always identifies a source/sender or a one of its 
microflow?

Regards,

Emmanuel

On 07/09/2020 16:00, Vincent Roca wrote:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-nwcrg-bats/
>
> comment
> The call will *end on Monday Sept. 28th (3 weeks)*.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nwcrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg

-- 
Emmanuel LOCHIN
ENAC - Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile
7, avenue Edouard Belin CS 54005, 31055 Toulouse Cedex 4 France
http://www.enac.fr
https://elochin.github.io/

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 19:56:32 +0100

The draft clearly describes the approach – as a protocol specification, it seems pretty good. The draft also clearly describes where the approach might be useful. 

The draft doesn’t, however, seem to include much discussion of what is the research contribution. The references show that there has been research in this space, but the draft doesn’t explain why it should be published on the IRTF stream rather than by the IETF. What’s the current research?

Colin

> On 7 Sep 2020, at 15:00, Vincent Roca <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
>