Re: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs

David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Thu, 08 March 2012 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
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 6A47921F8778 for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:52:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.559
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T8EtQvzQI7Qx for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F4621F87B2 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id j1Ep1i0041wpRvQ5A3ss7Q; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:52:52 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.33] ([71.233.85.150]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id j3sq1i00S3Ecudz3e3sq9e; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:52:52 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:52:47 -0500
From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
Message-ID: <CB7E3FA3.1E444%ietfdbh@comcast.net>
Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs
In-Reply-To: <DF8A701A-9666-4761-A6D8-B9CB30147032@inria.fr>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3414048770_41989831"
Cc: fecframe@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs
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: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:52:58 -0000

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)
Ietfdbh@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401


From:  Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>;
Date:  Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:37:08 +0100
To:  David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>;
Cc:  <fecframe@ietf.org>;
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 <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)
> Ietfdbh@comcast.net
> +1-603-828-1401
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> Fecframe@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe