Re: [tsvwg] WGLC on FECFRAME sliding window extensions

Gorry Fairhurst <> Tue, 01 May 2018 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1DF12E8E4 for <>; Tue, 1 May 2018 11:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2mlICiqCFIKj for <>; Tue, 1 May 2018 11:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:241:204::f0f0]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75EDF12E8DD for <>; Tue, 1 May 2018 11:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:630:241:207:55db:d709:da15:80c2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B1D21B000FD; Tue, 1 May 2018 19:15:19 +0100 (BST)
To: Wesley Eddy <>, tsvwg WG <>
References: <>
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Organization: The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 19:15:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] WGLC on FECFRAME sliding window extensions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 18:15:25 -0000

I have the read draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-01 during WGLC and have a 
few comments (as an individual),


The following is stated:
/.   (e.g., because of a congested
    router, of a poor signal-to-noise ratio in a wireless network, or
    because the number of bit errors exceeds the correction capabilities
    of a low-layer error correcting code)./
- while this is true, it is probably wise to assert that most links 
supporting IP employ a CRC or other integrity check to verify this 
correctness, and that this is assumed. RFC3819 may be a suitable reference.
The terms RTP and DCCP are mentioned, but the base spec RFCs in each 
case are not cited.
/ This section discusses the protocol elements for the FEC Framework./
This section uses requirements language, and therefore the intro para 
needs to say how this applies. - It seems to me that this section does 
more than discuss, and some of it is actually to specify?