Re: [nwcrg] 2nd RG Last Call for draft "Network coding and satellites"

"" <> Sat, 26 October 2019 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07FA12001A for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8el0ktDKsZ2k for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 717BB120018 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1572059559; bh=IzCRDF5nJRAL+qvZBIaXG2Bv2rewfXDFVOR/7wATzlw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=Z8IZRoZBcC96TUhGafZNtFt4y6AFYUQuy6DHVEf27dYAX/BqlTHlCwYgwglVeJ+f3cA54x3QDrWG87/oOiqsq685b3m756QGSWOc1D9y81e8x3slCl4OtolXfh6HnQfLttMg/1/RCErM9Tr+RHxnYbQJKQ5kqpbmIyLzcwjnBZeCpZglzIJilEkRN3DDjvZ1+1JZM5S2+bI1TfaKVgdPKEZdVXQVuVqUyeWPU+uUY05c1Y+JQRz1CSnZJuECsL/15nTEj6WDjI4xx9u/kUYYR757jKZvFQ/N4tFMLVIB7RMMOgMKnhUGiHUM7BT2viprrE7980AdD1uih3CPZ6iR0w==
X-YMail-OSG: yJh9_2MVM1nzNdyAskR.3AGGzD43djmxHswB5h6c1UbTCHHMf5.d4q4jBBjf2_y obxGNEnYFOE9WxTIeSuL2oEcpzgEjhtKtNmOnpayptfYEzMn8xFAPKJJX9I2M9JoFhBP6AiEUKcq PEUw01VovpagS0dzgEzNO.8n_u0il6_1VkVSFaSTv3meGnpXGkrp4UnmJHW_Ne5D7jjRihPkUIgS feByORaNmu6FjxVHsu8wxNr_MDKVusFR8S6l7KE6hbsRM3XPQ2ywFc5ure2ixQQWyTJ9ix4UmF8j SbEeg8kRns0axT7K6MfkpGhQhnz7Aee1mKTO187uFzadOcXk_kDD_N9watRD_vBDp4swa_S_5hKG 9623HT0jx2MS_0U7ztvm_GTTxUmFIzRrzDNQWCJC3ggawIrmCG3Fg7tk4uuQj.IiLZUaQJuxpxSw zIznVuq9NzBO5N.bp9VDFrqd0BrbzshP9QPHQEkh1SRlD5n_8gpfUWTwLDC1bjIwUkjcHMCaoKgp s9cINUv4rxrQ9bXyT31UnimtC8kZLUhXa0ECB7xlOpxXhiloG3J8ny_GL4ScNQu7Fd4KVyZ33HA2 VkOm4GtzUpjo8BmvZWP4euQAJKkTLoHvIp.ruR1.2RFSIK9nfZdT6xacnYnF8JWCaaOMgbjqsadw LeF6aEf3rlqAAZ.kLuPKjd3HwqmGtms3UmbYhLdr7RduV7Ir.7lMB90Tp7IX.QxIb53MW.4H5N9t JIFUY6g9bUbJXVqcuscRY2dUfvFKbVFtJFV_fq0e7ZXwoQTC85EtsngXrXNHyDAFYFX5s_ko_8WD D1i.Q_eiLT7kZKi0JiPDV9x.M7.e61m1Y12iP5DBpILETixpOEpT06xUQqytpDSjfjBbCygiemmh 45L7p0Jvv4GOVOVcRoMm.rfL3hcAi19ayaAPksqKMn21QoEy7R6dsM5luDnIGWWSK6O1gv5tQSm1 XDHIMwNY9dNNI46aYGKxpTA8aLFVfiqsdlyv_c_2.UybaeNTrMNyYIGaKMPY7X0t1R1Pnxm62yes 5Zy4zWtAmAx4rY3ada6lSNb9uZFn3ml7ENyPemuE6ve7m8vmBARpxm_HrRHlIh_5Y3bH_6vzETiW y489IxQ8THTDoFOmoypZPwi.QPkeQP1LvEhMlpAPkmNffvOfQOfpoG.S3mqpxz2gaOleuJF2VDKM q.Ul_XSCL5w.LEgJtMMu3s_bYUYpPhmNALaWXsoTHU3Vv4KOlf9JyazKvrSPcR6OoqXC_9j1jZSi GvA39mhlcIgMTssOGdXdtHKDnHKmP6PQswJYWnMpxNKfax5Ojcib6.59A032m0NjXNt63Lw--
Received: from by with HTTP; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 03:12:39 +0000
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 03:12:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: "" <>
To:, Vincent Roca <>
Cc: Marie-Jose Montpetit <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.14539 YMailNorrin Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:69.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/69.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nwcrg] 2nd RG Last Call for draft "Network coding and satellites"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Network Coding Research Group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 03:12:44 -0000

some comments, since I haven't seen much traffic on this:

Shouldn't the 'This document is a product of' para be far earlier
in the document? Should mention be made of a glossary at end, rather
than putting the glossary at the front?

I'm puzzled as to how this document claims that channel and link
codings are out of scope - and then talks about channel mode, dealing
with varying channel conditions (yet without using channel codings), etc.
They're stated as out of scope...

If the intent is treating the overall end-to-end path as some sort of
virtual 'channel' that coding packets are applied to, this needs to be
said explicitly upfront. If 'channel' means more than one concatenated
physical path here, this needs to be said. Unless your audience is only
network coding people... the title should likely be '_network_ coding
applicability to satellite-based scenarios' or similar, too. Needs to
be really specific for clarity.

Discussion of BBFRAME without discussing the FECFRAME (BBFRAME
with coding) appears to be an omission. Is this imagining a world
where FECFRAME, and its convolutional layers of coding are considered
completely unnecessary due to path coding within the BBFRAME?
If so (and it won't gain much traction) this would need to be stated.
I don't think claiming that FECFRAME is link/channel and out of
scope really flies; BBFRAME is a link construct too.

Fig 2: PEP is primarily a transport-level function; firewalls are
primarily network and transport. Having one outdour unit (dish at gateway?)
when the other end (user terminal) has both an indoor and outdoor
unit (IDU and ODU) seems a simplification. No idea what the stepped
end user boxes mean; if four end users, four boxes the same size
might convey that better, with numbers on them. 1, 2, 3, 4 ... n

minor nits:

section 4.1 - PEP is Enhancing, not Enhancement. PEP_s_ usually

section 4.2 - quickly varying channel conditions - if on the satellite
link (where discussing channel conditions is out of scope?) that's
what ACM, which is defined in the glossary, does -- and where network
coding does not do as well.

ASMS - spell out the conference name. No need to abbreviate journal
names - this isn't an academic paper with a page limit. Do provide
document object idenitifiers (DOIs) of papers where they exist.

This document has a difficult task (trying to build something
from nothing) but at least it's readable enough to debate.


Lloyd Wood

On Wednesday, 16 October 2019, 01:37:00 GMT+11, Vincent Roca <> wrote: 

Hello everybody,

A first RG Last Call for the « Network coding and satellites » / draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-04 draft
in April this year enabled to collect many highly valuable feedbacks. They have been taken into consideration 
according to the authors who produced an update.

It’s now time to start a second RG LC for version -06:

We would like to collect your comments by Wednesday 6th, November (3 weeks).

Thanks in advance.

   Marie-Jose and Vincent
nwcrg mailing list