Subject: [Rmt] FW: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-rev ised-05.txt comment / question

From: Mark Watson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:16:43 -0700

All,

I received the attached comment privately. I¹m going to interpret this as a
last call comment. I agree with the comment and propose to specify in the
06 draft that the symbol length L is obtained from the FEC Object
Transmission Information.

...Mark

------ Forwarded Message
From: Michael Spann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:27:35 -0500
To: Mark Watson <[email-masked]>
Conversation: 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revi
sed-05.txt comment / question
Subject: 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revi
sed-05.txt comment / question

Section 3.4.2 of draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-05 states

   receiver uses the source block length received out-of-band as part of

   the FEC Object Transmission Information to determine the length X in

   bytes of the source block, and allocates space for the X bytes that

   the source block requires.  The receiver also computes the length L

   of the encoding symbol in the payload of the packet by substracting

   the packet header length from the total length of the received packet

   (and the receiver checks that this length is the same in each

   subsequent received packet from the same source block).  After

typo aside (substracting?), shouldn¹t L be taken from the FEC Object
Transmission Information like X was?  What happens in the unlikely case that
the initial value for Y was selected to be N-1 and the final, potentially
short symbol was sent first?

mike

------ End of Forwarded Message

_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt