Re: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs

[Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]>]

So far only Vincent has responded. I can't progress this as
"consensus" without more input from the WG. Please respond ASAP.

Thanks,
Greg

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM, David Harrington <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks,
>
> It would be greatly helpful if that information is included in the document
> shepherd writeup when the doc is submitted to the IESG.
>
> --
> David Harrington
> Director, Transport Area
> Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
> [e-mail]
> [phone]
>
>
> From: Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:37:08 +0100
> To: David Harrington <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs
>
> 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:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg00816.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg00811.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg00810.html
>
> 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:
> http://openfec.org
>
> 2- Concerning Reed-Solomon codes, they are so commonly used
> that I don't think we need any official support.
>
> Cheers,
>
>    Vincent
>
>
> 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)
> [e-mail]
> [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
>