Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] A new informational draft on fec grouping issues

["Ali Begen (abegen)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rajiv,

Thanks for reading the draft. For other who have not started reading,
pls see the updated version (attached).

I asked someone without any FEC background to comment on the draft
(seems that we will have the same issue in MMUSIC). So, I expanded the
intro part and make clarifications about what we meant with
prioritization, additivity, etc.

Thanks again,
-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:36 AM
> To: Ali Begen (abegen); '[e-mail]'
> Subject: RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] A new informational draft on 
> fec grouping issues
> 
> Hi Ali,
> 
> That's fine. 
> I just got to see the draft. Looks fine to me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rajiv
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ali Begen (abegen)
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:28 PM
> > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); '[e-mail]'
> > Subject: RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] A new informational draft on fec 
> > grouping issues
> > 
> > This is just for describing the problem and showing some 
> alternative 
> > solutions. It does not have to become anything.
> > That's why, it is intended to be informational.
> > 
> > If MMUSIC agrees to adopt one of the solutions described 
> here or comes 
> > up with a new one, then of course we should work on that draft 
> > together, which should be in the cateogry of "proposed standard."
> > 
> > However, note that MMUSIC WG should approve what needs to be done 
> > here. And, that's why we need to tell them about our problems.
> > 
> > -acbegen
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:17 PM
> > > To: Ali Begen (abegen); [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: [FECFRAME-PROTO] A new informational draft on fec 
> > > grouping issues
> > > 
> > > Hi Ali,
> > > 
> > > We (the protocol team) should all collaborate to jointly 
> author the 
> > > new draft, if/when it needs to be produced.
> > > 
> > > Also, why should it be the informational draft? 
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Rajiv
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail] 
> > > > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ali Begen
> > > > (abegen)
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:04 PM
> > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: [FECFRAME-PROTO] A new informational draft on
> > fec grouping
> > > > issues
> > > > 
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > 
> > > > So far, we could not ignite a discussion in the MMUSIC WG
> > regarding
> > > > the FEC grouping issues. So, it was suggested that I
> > would write an
> > > > informational draft, describe the problems and propose some 
> > > > alternative solutions. So, that is what I did.
> > > > 
> > > > I am attaching the draft for your review. Note that this
> > has to be
> > > > submitted by Monday. So any comments within this week
> > > (before Friday)
> > > > would be appreciated. It is important that we convey our issues 
> > > > appropriately. So, please take a few minutes to review the
> > > document. 
> > > > It is very short, and should not take much time.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -acbegen
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

_______________________________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto