Subject: [AVT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-04

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:00:16 -0700

This version addresses the comments received from fecframe and avt so far. 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-04.txt

Fecframe chairs,

Could we proceed and finalize WGLC?

-acbegen

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:56 PM
To: Ali C. Begen (abegen)
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-04 

A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-04.txt has been successfuly submitted by Ali Begen and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme
Revision:	 04
Title:		 RTP Payload Format for 1-D Interleaved Parity FEC
Creation_date:	 2009-04-29
WG ID:		 fecframe
Number_of_pages: 31

Abstract:
This document defines a new RTP payload format for the Forward Error
Correction (FEC) that is generated by the 1-D interleaved parity code
from a source media encapsulated in RTP.  The 1-D interleaved parity
code is a systematic code, where a number of repair symbols are
generated from a set of source symbols and sent in a repair flow
separate from the source flow that carries the source symbols.  The
1-D interleaved parity code offers a good protection against bursty
packet losses at a cost of decent complexity.  The new payload format
defined in this document is used (with some exceptions) as a part of
the DVB Application-layer FEC specification.

The IETF Secretariat.

---

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:58:35 +0200

Hello Ali,

I'm not in favor of finalizing the WGLC for this document. IMHO we must,
first of all, finalize the framework document itself.

For instance, the terminology used by the interleaved-fec-scheme I-D
(section 3.1.) is not in line with the terminology used by the
fecframe-framework-03 I-D (Section 2):
	"Source Flow"   vs. "Source data flow"
	"Repair Flow"   vs. "Repair data flow"
	"Source Symbol" vs. nothing
	"Repair Symbol" vs. nothing
	"Source Packet" vs. nothing
	"Repair Packet" vs. nothing
And as I said before, IMHO the terminology proposed in the framework
I-D should be discussed too.

So let's do things in the right order, especially as the framework
WGLC finishes soon.

Additionally, I may have some comments for the interleaved-fec-scheme-04
I-D. Since I missed the WGLC deadline, you have the right to blame me ;-)
and I apologize in advance.

Regards,

  Vincent

Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe