Subject: [Rmt] More info on suggested wording changes to FLUTE

From: "Luby, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:43:18 -0800

It occurred to me that the wording changes to the second to last paragraph of Section 3.3 might not make it to the list as an attachment, so below is the suggested replacement text (slightly amended from the attachment):

The way FDT Instances are transmitted has a large impact on satisfying the recommendation above. When there is a single file transmitted in the session, one way to satisfy the recommendation above is to repeatedly transmit on a regular enough basis FDT Instances describing the file while the file is being transmitted. As another example, if an FDT Instance is longer than one packet payload in length, it is RECOMMENDED that an FEC code that provides protection against loss be used for delivering this FDT Instance. When there are multiple files in a session concurrently being transmitted to receivers, the way the FDT Instances are structured and transmitted also has a large impact.  As an example, a way to satisfy the recommendation above is to transmit an FDT Instance that describes all files currently being transmitted, and to transmit this FDT Instance reliably, using the same techniques as explained for the case when there is a single file transmitted in a session.  If instead the concurrently transmitted files are described in separate FDT Instances, another way to satisfy this recommendation is to transmit all the relevant FDT Instances reliably, using the same techniques as explained for the case when there is a single file transmitted in a session.

On 12/28/09 2:07 PM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt