Re: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs

David Harrington <> Thu, 08 March 2012 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A47921F8778 for <>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:52:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.559
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T8EtQvzQI7Qx for <>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F4621F87B2 for <>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id j1Ep1i0041wpRvQ5A3ss7Q; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:52:52 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by with comcast id j3sq1i00S3Ecudz3e3sq9e; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:52:52 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:52:47 -0500
From: David Harrington <>
To: Vincent Roca <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3414048770_41989831"
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 15:52:58 -0000



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)

From:  Vincent Roca <>;
Date:  Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:37:08 +0100
To:  David Harrington <>;
Cc:  <>;
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:

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 <Š>. 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