Re: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs

Vincent Roca <> Thu, 08 March 2012 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3E721F8762 for <>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:37:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.971
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JkgrYBuOubZM for <>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:37:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E90421F8704 for <>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:37:11 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.73,552,1325458800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="148272259"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 08 Mar 2012 16:37:09 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-31-726510690
From: Vincent Roca <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:37:08 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: David Harrington <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:37:13 -0000

Hello David,

You're perfectly right. We did the exercise last year, before accepting
both I-D as WG Items.

1- Concerning LDPC-Staircase codes, you'll find opinions at:

In the meantime LDPC-Staircase codes have been adopted as the
primary AL-FEC scheme for the Japanese ISDB-Tmm standard.
Both open-source and commercial codecs are available. And if you do
want the check by yourself their performance, you can:

2- Concerning Reed-Solomon codes, they are so commonly used
that I don't think we need any official support.



On March 5, 2012, 19:59, David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
> There are multiple fecframe WGLCs running for FEC schemes.
> The charter is fairly clear:
> "The FECFrame WG may develop new FEC schemes if necessary to provide 
> substantial performance gains for the intended applications. However 
> the acceptance of any FEC scheme will require multiple, prior, detailed 
> reviews of the FEC code by independent experts from both the IETF and 
> the broader community, since it is likely that the IETF working group 
> will not include a large enough number of suitable experts in its 
> working set. If these reviews are positive, then Working Group 
> acceptance of an FEC scheme work item still needs the approval of the 
> responsible Area Director. "
> For the WGLC, I would like more than just a "sure I support this" email.
> I would like a "I have reviewed the text in this document, I have reviewed the code in this document, and this scheme significantly improves performance for a use case that is important to me, which is <…>. Therefore, I support publication of this document."
> If you have implemented or deployed this specification, and found no problems with the specification, or plan to implement or deploy this scheme, stating that would also be helpful.
> Please convince me that these documents are ready for IESG Review and deserve to be published as RFCs that are IETF standards because they address real-world problems.
> Thanks,
> --
> David Harrington
> Director, Transport Area
> Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
> +1-603-828-1401
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list