Subject: [Rmt] IETF74 FCAST Action Item

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:37:22 +0100

I've been on vacation and then catching-up, forgive the delay - this is 
anyway a repeat of what I said earlier.

 > 1) Do you think there is merit in the FCAST specification as an RMT
 > WG item (or not)?

As I said in the working group meeting, I would support this.

To me FLUTE is a useful spec that has been deployed, but when we 
scheduled RMT as a work item we envisaged a building block approach. I 
guess we are also wiser now, and we can provide a leaner more targeted 
specification?

I think having more than one spec would be good, especially if this 
stimulated some IPR-free development work, but do not myself currently 
plan an implementation.

 > 2) Will you review the document so that we can rapidly finish it if
 > it is accepted as a working group item?

Yes, I have reviewed the current draft, and I found it reasonably mature 
- it seems time to take on wider inputs from others in the WG.

I'd be happy to review further revisions of this document.

Gorry