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

Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr> Tue, 25 October 2011 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr>
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 E859021F8B62 for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 6uOgDpS5vUdu for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866D221F8B5A for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,403,1315173600"; d="scan'208";a="125740446"
Received: from geve.inrialpes.fr ([194.199.24.116]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 25 Oct 2011 09:38:40 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr>
In-Reply-To: <CAPiE_jUxY3dKVKf9rgJqOf=pjKF7gpwp5RgZ0K=p_uZQDNVFzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:38:40 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <F79E97E2-D59C-45BA-923F-5B77915A926F@inrialpes.fr>
References: <CABFReBrZ7dzFJazyUdbZpv4_=rZawM3woicGRnRHJ+mO+EHiPw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPiE_jUxY3dKVKf9rgJqOf=pjKF7gpwp5RgZ0K=p_uZQDNVFzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Ellis <martin.ellis@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:38:43 -0000

Hello Martin,

> 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).

Good idea. We'll do that in next version of both I-Ds.

> - 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).

No, these results come from an evaluation of the LDPC-Staircase
codes, using a dedicated simulator. However they give an idea of
what performance (in terms of erasure recovery) can be expected
for real use-cases if these codes are correctly used. We'll clarify this.

Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers,

   Vincent