Subject: RDR:RE: IPVBI specification

From: Dan Zigmond <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 02:01:16 +0100

As you can see from Simon's email (sent after yours below, I assume),
Philips did not intend to "withdraw" their FEC proposal exactly.  Although,
as I said in my email, I believed we left things at the last in-person
meeting that we were going to include the algorithm proposed by Norpak for
both 525 and 635 systems (and both NABTS and WST), it became clear
afterwards that there was still interest in the Philips algorithm.  So I
believe your time testing has not been wasted, and I look forward to seeing
the results.

	Dan

 ------------------------------------------------------
Dan Zigmond
Co-Manager, Interactive Television
Senior Manager, Interactive Television Standards
WebTV Networks, Inc.
[email-masked]
 ------------------------------------------------------

 -----Original Message-----
From: andrew [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 3:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: IPVBI specification

> At the last in-person working group meeting, the consensus was to go
> with the so-called Norpak FEC for both 525 and 625 systems at least
> for the time-being.  Philips withdrew their proposed FEC, and no
> other FEC had yet been published, so this decision seemed relatively
> uncontroversial.
>
dave,

i cannot believe i am reading this....you knew we were proposing to
undertake field testing of the philips fec - why did no-one tell us
it had been withdrawn?  the material we received from philips was
very rudimentary, and we have already done a lot of work to make a
usable implementation.  for what purpose?  it seems we have wasted
our time.  i think some explanation is in order.

i would also add that any proposal that envisages using nabts inside
wst on 625 line pal will encounter great opposition, irrespective of
the fec.

regards

andrew
australian capital equity
GSM: +61 (0)419 956 614
e-mail: [email-masked]
GMT +8