Re: [Fecframe] WGLC draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-00

Martin Ellis <martin.ellis@gmail.com> Wed, 19 October 2011 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.ellis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E15521F8B07 for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sQv3+NDU4Dd4 for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACF521F8B29 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe6 with SMTP id 6so1508663wwe.13 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=0z8tfm84jwDfQe0QRJL8BsqnmP8VT9+B84la5RkLkJI=; b=rmuKbzJQ1bXFvKTdHLdDS4aTUId1BZqp/uvGnaVtsJYxdYLlQ0CdtxodOMSvubVkHF 0n0gBefnrhk8EyviZUsJdPRwuscZ9I6BoMinDJSYmfxBcOjgAWItNLN9xyU6NtvcEmad fVoTs3FCjR6/bmMR0kqY+kGZscosP2CR6mqpU=
Received: by 10.216.137.36 with SMTP id x36mr2345248wei.41.1319016956121; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.73.149 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABFReBrZ7dzFJazyUdbZpv4_=rZawM3woicGRnRHJ+mO+EHiPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABFReBrZ7dzFJazyUdbZpv4_=rZawM3woicGRnRHJ+mO+EHiPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Ellis <martin.ellis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:35:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPiE_jUxY3dKVKf9rgJqOf=pjKF7gpwp5RgZ0K=p_uZQDNVFzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: gjshep@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: fecframe@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WGLC draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-00
X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework <fecframe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fecframe>, <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe>
List-Post: <mailto:fecframe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe>, <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:36:00 -0000

I've read this document, and I had just a couple of comments:

 - The last 2 paragraphs of section 4.2 discuss a max_rt parameter,
which restricts the ADU block size for the real-time constraints of a
particular application. Would it be appropriate to give an example
here? (this also applies to the simple-rs draft).

 - In section 7.1, some specific numbers are given on levels of
overhead required to reduce residual loss rates. Are these results
based on the [Matsuzono10] reference? If so, I think it would be
better to say so explicitly (and briefly mention the assumptions made
in that study; i.e., uniform random packet loss).

Cheers,
Martin


On 14 September 2011 15:17, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>; wrote:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc/
>
> ..and another WGLC. Please read and provide feedback so we can close
> the group before Taipei and give David something to brag about. ;-)
>
> Thanks!,
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> Fecframe@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
>