[nwcrg] about the symbols field in draft-heide-nwcrg-rlnc-02

Salvatore Signorello <ssignorello@ciencias.ulisboa.pt> Thu, 11 July 2019 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ssignorello@fc.ul.pt>
X-Original-To: nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F8E1202E1 for <nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 02:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ciencias.ulisboa.pt
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PxtD-HTqHLOo for <nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 02:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MX01.fc.ul.pt (mx01.fc.ul.pt [IPv6:2001:690:21c0:f602::a35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 248B9120408 for <nwcrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 02:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FC-MBX3.fc.ul.pt (fc-mbx3.fc.ul.pt [10.121.30.22]) by MX01.fc.ul.pt (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x6B9XUhC012738 for <nwcrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:33:31 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ciencias.ulisboa.pt; s=default; t=1562837611; bh=c4/mVgtiS75NX+vDkr0wLPYK6Y+CQ6YdGWe0fJWmkBU=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:From; b=IWNmwh0e4YekbnxsG7bJH8uqT5ddM7Euf+q1QNMLAMdirnMb8glO52g4BKDFMRh6f SZJXxSlbKP21PMVxGA3M/XLvFuOpbim8JpchKl46UHeJWAV5ec20CHvHdUPNna+0Xt j6PhARcH0BLnSqrLm6yQM/b97w5eTsh4z8oTH460=
Received: from FC-CAS2.fc.ul.pt (194.117.42.62) by FC-MBX3.fc.ul.pt (10.121.30.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:33:30 +0100
Received: from smtp.ciencias.ulisboa.pt (194.117.42.59) by FC-CAS2.fc.ul.pt (194.117.42.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:33:29 +0100
Received: from [10.101.218.96] (todo-machine.fc.ul.pt [10.101.218.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssignorello) by smtp.ciencias.ulisboa.pt (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9031C40A0BEC for <nwcrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:33:30 +0100 (WEST)
To: "nwcrg@irtf.org" <nwcrg@irtf.org>
From: Salvatore Signorello <ssignorello@ciencias.ulisboa.pt>
Message-ID: <7d6d9105-9748-13ee-f04a-86cfe09b3908@ciencias.ulisboa.pt>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:33:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-FCUL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-FCUL-MailScanner-ID: x6B9XUhC012738
X-FCUL-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-FCUL-MailScanner-From: ssignorello@fc.ul.pt
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nwcrg/qz3MhCrpLE00vTQ2CEyyk1rvyt4>
Subject: [nwcrg] about the symbols field in draft-heide-nwcrg-rlnc-02
X-BeenThere: nwcrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Network Coding Research Group discussion list <nwcrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nwcrg>, <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nwcrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nwcrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg>, <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:34:18 -0000

Dear all,

I was wondering where the decision to have a 4 bits long Symbols header 
field (and by consequence, a maximum number of 15 symbols per symbol 
representation) comes from?

Is that "upper bound" the outcome of any previous research work (if so, 
please point me to that) or purely arbitrary?


Thank you very much for any clarification,

Salvatore


P.S. really look forward to reading the new version of the Symbol 
Representation draft.