From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Mar 1 04:45:17 2012 Return-Path: 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 F2DF521F86F6; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 04:45:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 6xOcb0M1SMF6; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 04:45:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E25721F8609; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 04:45:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120301124509.9104.31954.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 04:45:09 -0800 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] I-D Action: draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-09.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:45:17 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the FEC Framework Working Group of the IE= TF. Title : Raptor FEC Schemes for FECFRAME Author(s) : Mark Watson Thomas Stockhammer Michael Luby Filename : draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-09.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2012-03-01 This document describes Fully-Specified Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes for the Raptor and RaptorQ codes and their application to reliable delivery of media streams in the context of FEC Framework. The Raptor and RaptorQ codes are systematic codes, where a number of repair symbols are generated from a set of source symbols and sent in one or more repair flows in addition to the source symbols that are sent to the receiver(s) within a source flow. The Raptor and RaptorQ codes offer close to optimal protection against arbitrary packet losses at a low computational complexity. Six FEC Schemes are defined, two for protection of arbitrary packet flows, two that are optimised for small source blocks and another two for protection of a single flow that already contains a sequence number. Repair data may be sent over arbitrary datagram transport (e.g. UDP) or using RTP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-09.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-09.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Mar 1 08:24:19 2012 Return-Path: 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 9383921E8229; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:24:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 UxGPHUQ8WQFM; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:24:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B951B21E822A; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:23:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120301162351.31665.28907.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:23:51 -0800 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] I-D Action: draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:24:20 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the FEC Framework Working Group of the IE= TF. Title : Raptor FEC Schemes for FECFRAME Author(s) : Mark Watson Thomas Stockhammer Michael Luby Filename : draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2012-03-01 This document describes Fully-Specified Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes for the Raptor and RaptorQ codes and their application to reliable delivery of media streams in the context of FEC Framework. The Raptor and RaptorQ codes are systematic codes, where a number of repair symbols are generated from a set of source symbols and sent in one or more repair flows in addition to the source symbols that are sent to the receiver(s) within a source flow. The Raptor and RaptorQ codes offer close to optimal protection against arbitrary packet losses at a low computational complexity. Six FEC Schemes are defined, two for protection of arbitrary packet flows, two that are optimised for small source blocks and another two for protection of a single flow that already contains a sequence number. Repair data may be sent over arbitrary datagram transport (e.g. UDP) or using RTP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10.txt From martin.ellis@gmail.com Mon Mar 5 03:49:48 2012 Return-Path: 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 5597D21F85D5 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 03:49:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 OYfSLZZA-5UQ for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 03:49:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135B821F858D for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 03:49:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so2359224wgb.13 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 03:49:45 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of martin.ellis@gmail.com designates 10.180.104.137 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.104.137; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of martin.ellis@gmail.com designates 10.180.104.137 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=martin.ellis@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=martin.ellis@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.104.137]) by 10.180.104.137 with SMTP id ge9mr14459655wib.20.1330948185378 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 03:49:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=MEiDzWNmejGBdgY+ZweMsOUBAwM1C6/kmhbGktG79Cc=; b=Kr92S1Fj/8mSRwIIa5qY92Px7w2J69uFY4a3VZ6zeFt8hr6gmpHJH31uTbC4z6XqUR JQzvL0nwzKgcC0bYklaSgJJpNdadF5QwIsZNVP0tWFlQRK4b6vj0oFr0uKORCCqU2T98 l9crFwOiAhjLYOgOq9JYHHmGpeToyFx6WuZD0FnYcgaQraV3PKPGvXkpIjr3jysr/wDb q/bD0iIFrSHQ8VaGZnI0/IzO88HYReDGfvQoPfASG7sg3nXrLS3dMQt4ourYygm+xoWb YJ4I9d5KworjFEwFH9M+hOLoGSfhXy8SfWNPFHzMg/9MgisIj2MY8FsVwTF+lHHqQNtO +/sA== Received: by 10.180.104.137 with SMTP id ge9mr11470048wib.20.1330948185257; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 03:49:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.93.9 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 03:49:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Martin Ellis Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 11:49:25 +0000 Message-ID: To: gjshep@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WGLC draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-01 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:49:48 -0000 I've read this draft, and it looks fine -- the example text on max_rt added from -00 makes sense. One minor typo at Section 7.1, paragraph 3: s/8he/the/ The RS draft is also fine, since it shares most of the same fixes. Cheers, Martin On 29 February 2012 13:25, Greg Shepherd wrote: > This starts a two week timer for WGLC of draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-01. > Please read and respond to the list. > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc/ > > Thanks, > Greg > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From gjshep@gmail.com Mon Mar 5 09:32:08 2012 Return-Path: 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 D8E7E21F8895 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:32:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 5GMaBMS0pCOj for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA4B21F887E for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:32:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so3996506bku.31 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:32:07 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gjshep@gmail.com designates 10.204.173.11 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.204.173.11; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gjshep@gmail.com designates 10.204.173.11 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gjshep@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=gjshep@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.204.173.11]) by 10.204.173.11 with SMTP id n11mr11081325bkz.120.1330968727245 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:32:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=7KPd4DgsdNlSzM9Ff5L2kTe5djHaBLOekO7cMoxOWag=; b=i15iKHwEUCZ3evjhSQNM6eM5r8QBWzWoyLNQjo7VB5l+qdT/pOTJoaPjxnRUuNrZcr jlzU79yRquwC7FhTndh6DMT99KBNH2MDJ85ARZY6Rb1InUh4I1iG8eZJEGMtjHzwu23Z NgLqSrMAGy5xRTh/N4QjBAU7pDKVI9ECfFrGDdnU68P9DgFDJKDsBdhgMGIh+97lu9bd wbLVQgXzFwn2A9W5a7+5An9MVAVpfK2X0m6rdzmdgeCevrb/j3ouPhJlpS3ySwpr1YxQ OPmee+cinRLJ2PTOkWDauOgo7LxbktPBVhhm0C7Up+PWydlU/8k8YyvUVc1yoNymtSIb nLSg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.173.11 with SMTP id n11mr8762297bkz.120.1330968727142; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:32:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.118.15 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:32:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:32:07 -0800 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: fecframe@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WGLC draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-02 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:32:09 -0000 We're halfway through the two week timer and we've only had a single response. We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote of support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. Thanks, Greg On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > This starts a two week timer for WGLC of > draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-02. Please read and respond to the list. > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs/ > > Thanks, > Greg From gjshep@gmail.com Mon Mar 5 09:32:44 2012 Return-Path: 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 52A7321F887D for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:32:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 nbK9YWs-Sg26 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:32:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ADB121F8882 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:32:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so3997496bku.31 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:32:42 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gjshep@gmail.com designates 10.204.10.66 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.204.10.66; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gjshep@gmail.com designates 10.204.10.66 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gjshep@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=gjshep@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.204.10.66]) by 10.204.10.66 with SMTP id o2mr11090536bko.30.1330968762625 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:32:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ojMIv1E+hZauOQKsSdO6Sz+GGWvaFYSIvoYzfjtDF4A=; b=jn331NiMYSx7I3TgyXVqJXiJGTKxCidDFk1Le3I3zeXyDty86JhLWqZx8N+FURINow 1gAxPWCpa8SNB3gv1toJA9li5Ml7drhYnnzYhrZuWwnFVVEvp+Ss1F9rLw+CeI6gbYTa iPxYccL1ue92DlqD3fAIhbernB2WrOHamZxPxG4M16x0NrNkc1Aw5jik4srZ8Yn2UzoF mK4ix35FFPQND5HmF3lhANUHuN899fbK+P7GpHB4pm+z/l8HSqE6x/SWYdK5hWCA0Ewe IezuMm8n3t60bpPVLShRRngrEzKmAb+YQllELsSOYnRFQdOSw8tOMrGdIas9TK+LTHxX azmQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.10.66 with SMTP id o2mr8781273bko.30.1330968762532; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:32:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.118.15 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:32:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:32:42 -0800 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: fecframe@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:32:44 -0000 We're halfway through the two week timer and the list has been silent. We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote of support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. Thanks, Greg On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > This starts a 2 week WGLC for Pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (CDP) > for Protecting Multiple Source Flows in FEC Framework, > draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-02: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp/ > > Please read and respond to the list. > > Thanks, > Greg From yaakov_s@rad.com Mon Mar 5 09:51:15 2012 Return-Path: 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 0390421F8775 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:51:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.688, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, 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 fsl3hpu6kC9T for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:51:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay02-q.rad.co.il [94.188.133.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD3121F8772 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:51:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay02 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 5 Mar 2012 19:48:21 +0200 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:51:03 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: "fecframe@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] WGLC draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-02 Thread-Index: AQHM9uXES4517CmLyEOD3mANDcF9p5Zb3HOAgAAmwfA= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:51:03 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90431716C@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.17.170.86] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WGLC draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-02 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:51:15 -0000 Support Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of Greg Shepherd Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 19:32 To: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WGLC draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-02 We're halfway through the two week timer and we've only had a single response. We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote of support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. Thanks, Greg On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > This starts a two week timer for WGLC of > draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-02. Please read and respond to the list. > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs/ > > Thanks, > Greg _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From ietfdbh@comcast.net Mon Mar 5 10:59:58 2012 Return-Path: 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 94F0821F85D1 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:59:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.364, 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 dYZoGQTsiBHr for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:59:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD4021F85C5 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id htQy1i0071ZXKqc56uzt9E; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:59:53 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.33] ([71.233.85.150]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id huzs1i0123Ecudz3huzsTh; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:59:53 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:59:50 -0500 From: David Harrington To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: fecframe WGLCs Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3413800792_30200244" Subject: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:59:58 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3413800792_30200244 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable 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 <=8A>. 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 addres= s real-world problems. Thanks, -- David Harrington Director, Transport Area Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Ietfdbh@comcast.net +1-603-828-1401 --B_3413800792_30200244 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

=
There are multiple fecframe WGLCs running for FEC schemes.
<= div>
The charter is fairly clear:
"The FECFrame WG may develop new FEC schem= es if necessary to provide 
substantial performance gains for the in= tended applications. However 
the acceptance of any FEC scheme will = require multiple, prior, detailed 
reviews of the FEC code by indepe= ndent experts from both the IETF and 
the broader community, since i= t is likely that the IETF working group 
will not include a large en= ough number of suitable experts in its 
working set. If these review= s are positive, then Working Group 
acceptance of an FEC scheme work= item still needs the approval of the 
responsible Area Director.&nb= sp;"
= 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 t= his document= , and this scheme= significantly improves performance for a use case that is important to me, = which is <…>. Therefore, I support publication of this document.= "

<= /span>
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 Rev= iew and deserve to be published as RFCs that are IETF standards because they= address real-world problems.

Thanks,
--<= /font>
= David Harrington
= Director, Transport Area
Internet Engineeri= ng Task Force (IETF)
Ietfdbh@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401

--B_3413800792_30200244-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Mar 6 14:59:30 2012 Return-Path: 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 6D16921E804B; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:59:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 R1VCUwAFrwbs; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:59:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E771D21F851E; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:59:29 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120306225929.21687.52941.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:59:29 -0800 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] Last Call: (Raptor FEC Schemes for FECFRAME) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:59:30 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the FEC Framework WG (fecframe) to consider the following document: - 'Raptor FEC Schemes for FECFRAME' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-20. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes Fully-Specified Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes for the Raptor and RaptorQ codes and their application to reliable delivery of media streams in the context of FEC Framework. The Raptor and RaptorQ codes are systematic codes, where a number of repair symbols are generated from a set of source symbols and sent in one or more repair flows in addition to the source symbols that are sent to the receiver(s) within a source flow. The Raptor and RaptorQ codes offer close to optimal protection against arbitrary packet losses at a low computational complexity. Six FEC Schemes are defined, two for protection of arbitrary packet flows, two that are optimised for small source blocks and another two for protection of a single flow that already contains a sequence number. Repair data may be sent over arbitrary datagram transport (e.g. UDP) or using RTP. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1186/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1290/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1509/ From presnick@qualcomm.com Fri Feb 24 07:01:36 2012 Return-Path: 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 41B4521F843E for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:01:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 c6dX9-q9a92E for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212ED21F86F6 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:01:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1330095695; x=1361631695; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4F47A64A.4020206@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Fr i,=2024=20Feb=202012=2009:01:30=20-0600|From:=20Pete=20Re snick=20|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20Thomas=20Stockhammer=20|CC:=20David=20B=20Harrington=20,=20Luby=20Michael=0D=0A=09,=20,=20|Subject:=20Re:=20Pete=20Resnick's=20Discuss=20on =20draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor-05:=0D=0A=20(withDISCUS S=20and=20COMMENT)|References:=20<20111029191259.724.2906 7.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>=09<843F8E40A07840AFA61B3C3944 F5D7FA@davidPC>=09<4EB2356B.1060801@qualcomm.com>=20=20<4ED049F2.20 30306@qualcomm.com>=20<6FF946CE-A73E-42E6-A582-505D9AF0B0 1E@nomor.de>=20<1F1244790E67477DBA4BDBD8491B999A@davidPC> =20<965B818A89DA4E01B31C55CDC3294861@davidPC>=20<46031464 -78F5-4B08-B0C4-9A59CFAF8E5D@nomor.de>|In-Reply-To:=20<46 031464-78F5-4B08-B0C4-9A59CFAF8E5D@nomor.de> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"windows-1252" =3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=208bit |X-Originating-IP:=20[172.30.48.1]; bh=g8Mav76eenTapMilLJxA9Lq4iAfZuNOjg4JdqlEWmB4=; b=w62qnSRA08RfN4017Auek6Th0njI1/2feevSQX22gahMjFlg2pLKb9/9 XE6TtRx9ZlC4FIMwhQqjcVqEl31+PTOW0lg91YCEbpxzQDKl84BqJqGmm NY56SF9/VPKUFA365SdQ82bzC5KMXxCqoK8M4w2VW6DnFOy9bdyD1O3P8 s=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6629"; a="166196126" Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2012 07:01:34 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,476,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="186803487" Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 24 Feb 2012 07:01:34 -0800 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:01:33 -0800 Message-ID: <4F47A64A.4020206@qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:01:30 -0600 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Stockhammer References: <20111029191259.724.29067.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <843F8E40A07840AFA61B3C3944F5D7FA@davidPC> <4EB2356B.1060801@qualcomm.com> <4ED049F2.2030306@qualcomm.com> <6FF946CE-A73E-42E6-A582-505D9AF0B01E@nomor.de> <1F1244790E67477DBA4BDBD8491B999A@davidPC> <965B818A89DA4E01B31C55CDC3294861@davidPC> <46031464-78F5-4B08-B0C4-9A59CFAF8E5D@nomor.de> In-Reply-To: <46031464-78F5-4B08-B0C4-9A59CFAF8E5D@nomor.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:27:11 -0800 Cc: David B Harrington , fecframe-chairs@tools.ietf.org, fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor-05: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:01:36 -0000 This addresses my DISCUSS issue. I've cleared. I've left in the remaining two comments in my ballot. You may address them if you like, or ignore them. That's up to you, Dave, and the WG. Thanks for addressing the issues. pr On 2/24/12 7:35 AM, Thomas Stockhammer wrote: > Dave, Pete, > > I have uploaded a new version. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor-07.txt > > Inline how the comments had been addressed: > > >> In section 10.3, please consider explaining when you would not follow >> "SHOULD be sent in a separate RTP session" - give guidance on when a >> single >> session is appropriate. Likewise, why is using CNAME to associate the >> sessions >> only a MAY? Unless there are strong reasons to define and use an >> alternative >> mechanism, this would be better off as a MUST. >> > [T] This has been changed as follows: > "If the repair RTP session is sent in a separate RTP session the two sessions MUST be associated using RTCP CNAME." > > The association of repair and source RTP session is not part of the RTCP usage, so this recommendation is removed. > The choice of whether running this in the same session of in separate session is really deployment specific. > However, if they are in different sessions, then for association the usage of the same RTCP CNAME is mandated. > > > >> and update the document to not use RFC2119 langauge in the template >> section. >> > [T] This addresses the DISCUSS from Pete. The new text does not include any RFC2119 language. > "The default value of this parameter (when it does not appear explicitly) is 'A'." > > Please let me know if this covers all the remaining concerns. > > Thanks > > Thomas > > >> Once we hear from avtcore, you can cut a new revision. >> >> thanks, >> dbh >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: David Harrington [mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net] >>> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:49 PM >>> To: 'Thomas Stockhammer' >>> Cc: fecframe-chairs@tools.ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: Pete Resnick's Discuss on >>> draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor-05: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT) >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Please change the text in the template sections to not use RFC2119 >>> language. >>> Pete suggests: >>> "The default value of this parameter (when it does not appear >>> explicitly) is 'A'." >>> I think that is sufficiently clear. >>> >>> You can make sure the text elsewhere shows this "A" default is a >>> normative requirement, using rfc2119 language. >>> >>> Please publish another revision with this fix, so we can move >>> >> forward. >> >>> I have asked Robert to check the current revision and clear if he is >>> satisfied; you might want to wait a couple days to see if he wants >>> >> any >> >>> further changes made. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> David Harrington >>> Director, IETF Transport Area >>> ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf) >>> dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com >>> +1 603 828 1401 (cell) >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Thomas Stockhammer [mailto:stockhammer@nomor.de] >>>> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 1:12 AM >>>> To: Pete Resnick >>>> Cc: draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor@tools.ietf.org; >>>> fecframe-chairs@tools.ietf.org; David Harrington; 'The IESG' >>>> Subject: Re: Pete Resnick's Discuss on >>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor-05: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT) >>>> >>>> Pete, >>>> >>>> inline comments on the comments resolution … >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Specific problems: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Section 3: "MAY" is not appropriate here. You're not >>>>>>>>> >> defining >> >>>>>>>>> a protocol option; you're saying that repair packets can be >>>>>>>>> generated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> [T] To avoid the may here it says now: >>>>>> "The Raptor and RaptorQ codes are efficient block-based >>>>>> >>>> fountain codes, meaning that from any group of source packets >>>> (or 'source block') an one can generate an arbitrary number >>>> of repair packets." >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Works for me (though there seems to be a typo in >>>>> >>>> [T] Thanks! Typo fixed! >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> I must say that, try though I might, I can't understand >>>>>>> >>>> how an implementer might choose to decide that a marker bit >>>> of 0 means last packet and 1 means otherwise. That one sounds >>>> like a definition of the bit, not anything that can be an >>>> implementation choice that requires a 2119 requirement. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> [T] I understand the comment from Pete that this may also >>>>>> >>>> be interpreted as a definition. But still it is expected that >>>> the bit is set accordingly and the implementation can write >>>> code to identify the last packet in the source block and set >>>> the marker bit to 1. So I would prefer to stick with the SHALL >>>> >> here. >> >>>>>> >>>>> I still disagree, but it sounds like I'm "in the rough" >>>>> >>>> part of the consensus. :-) >>>> >>>> [T] See other discussion, I am still trying to understand the >>>> exact issue. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I don't think you can use this payload format for anything >>>>>> >>>> different than Raptor and RaptorQ, at least this is not >>>> considered. It is also the case that different media codecs >>>> generally each defines different payload formats unless the >>>> payload formats are generic. I would assume the same applies >>>> here and this is mostly because we know that it works with >>>> Raptor and RaptorQ, but we do not know if it works with >>>> anything different. >>>> >>>>>> I left the second "SHALL" because this is what an >>>>>> >>>> implementor is expected to do. To create an RTP payload that >>>> contains FEC Repair Payloads. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (*Shrug*) I don't think it's necessary. >>>>> >>>> [T] Still not sure what would be the appropriate text then? >>>> Is it not mandated that the implementor implements the >>>> normative parts of the two docs? >>>> >>>> Thomas >>>> > --- > Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89 978980 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com > Nomor Research GmbH - Sitz der Gesellschaft: München - Registergericht: München, HRB 165856 – Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - Geschäftsführer: Dr. Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering. > -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 From vincent.roca@inria.fr Thu Mar 8 07:37:13 2012 Return-Path: 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 8B3E721F8762 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:37:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 JkgrYBuOubZM for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:37:12 -0800 (PST) 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 8E90421F8704 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:37:11 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,552,1325458800"; d="scan'208,217";a="148272259" Received: from geve.inrialpes.fr ([194.199.24.116]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 08 Mar 2012 16:37:09 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-31-726510690 From: Vincent Roca In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:37:08 +0100 Message-Id: References: To: David Harrington X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:37:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail-31-726510690 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 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, >=20 > There are multiple fecframe WGLCs running for FEC schemes. >=20 > The charter is fairly clear: > "The FECFrame WG may develop new FEC schemes if necessary to provide=20= > substantial performance gains for the intended applications. However=20= > the acceptance of any FEC scheme will require multiple, prior, = detailed=20 > reviews of the FEC code by independent experts from both the IETF and=20= > the broader community, since it is likely that the IETF working group=20= > will not include a large enough number of suitable experts in its=20 > working set. If these reviews are positive, then Working Group=20 > acceptance of an FEC scheme work item still needs the approval of the=20= > responsible Area Director. " >=20 > For the WGLC, I would like more than just a "sure I support this" = email. >=20 > 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 = <=85>. Therefore, I support publication of this document." >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Thanks, > -- > David Harrington > Director, Transport Area > Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) > Ietfdbh@comcast.net > +1-603-828-1401 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --Apple-Mail-31-726510690 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg00816.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:

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:
"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 <=85>. 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.
--
David Harrington
Director, Transport Area
Internet Engineering Task Force = (IETF)
+1-603-828-1401

_______________________________________________
Fecframe mailing = list
Fecframe@ietf.org
https://www.iet= f.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe

= --Apple-Mail-31-726510690-- From ietfdbh@comcast.net Thu Mar 8 07:52:58 2012 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 To: Vincent Roca Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs In-Reply-To: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:52:58 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3414048770_41989831 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable 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 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:37:08 +0100 To: David Harrington Cc: 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, >=20 > There are multiple fecframe WGLCs running for FEC schemes. >=20 > 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. " >=20 > For the WGLC, I would like more than just a "sure I support this" email. >=20 > I would like a "I have reviewed the text in this document, I have reviewe= d the > code in this document, and this scheme significantly improves performance= for > a use case that is important to me, which is <=8A>. Therefore, I support > publication of this document." >=20 > If you have implemented or deployed this specification, and found no prob= lems > with the specification, or plan to implement or deploy this scheme, stati= ng > that would also be helpful. >=20 > Please convince me that these documents are ready for IESG Review and des= erve > to be published as RFCs that are IETF standards because they address > real-world problems. >=20 > Thanks, > -- > David Harrington > Director, Transport Area > Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) > Ietfdbh@comcast.net > +1-603-828-1401 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --B_3414048770_41989831 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

=
Thanks,

It would be greatly helpful if t= hat information is included in the document shepherd writeup when the doc is= submitted to the IESG.

= --
David Harrington
Director, Transport Area
Internet Engine= ering 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:


In the meantime LDPC-Staircas= e codes have been adopted as the
primary AL-FEC scheme for the Jap= anese ISDB-Tmm standard.
Both open-source and commercial codecs&nb= sp;are available. And if you do
want the check by yourself their&n= bsp;performance, you can:

<= div>

   Vincent


On March 5, 2012, 19:59, David Harringt= on wrote:
=
Hi,

There are multiple fecframe WGLCs running = for FEC schemes.

The charter is fairly clear:
=
"The FECFrame WG ma= y develop new FEC schemes if necessary to provide 
substantial performance gains for the intended appl= ications. However 
the acc= eptance of any FEC scheme will require multiple, prior, detailed 
reviews of the FEC code by independe= nt experts from both the IETF and 
the broader community, since it is likely that the IETF working gro= up 
will not include a lar= ge enough number of suitable experts in its 
working set. If these reviews are positive, then Working = Group 
acceptance of an FE= C scheme work item still needs the approval of the 
responsible Area Director. "

For the WGLC, I would like more than j= ust a "sure I support this" email.

I would like a "I have reviewed the text in this d= ocument, I have reviewed the code in this document, and this scheme significantly improves performance fo= r a use case that is important to me, which is <…>. Therefore, I= support publication of this document."

If you have implemented or deployed this spec= ification, and found no problems with the specification, or plan to implemen= t or deploy this scheme, stating that would also be helpful.

 _______________________________________________
Fecframe mailing listFecframe@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi= nfo/fecframe

--B_3414048770_41989831-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Mar 8 08:09:23 2012 Return-Path: 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 A90B521F8775; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:09:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 jjRANubAUhkz; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:09:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3048521F8768; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:09:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120308160923.7490.71312.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:09:23 -0800 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] I-D Action: draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-03.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:09:23 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the FEC Framework Working Group of the IE= TF. Title : Simple Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schem= e for FECFRAME Author(s) : Vincent Roca Mathieu Cunche Jerome Lacan Amine Bouabdallah Kazuhisa Matsuzono Filename : draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-03.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2012-03-08 This document describes a fully-specified simple FEC scheme for Reed- Solomon codes over GF(2^^m), with 2 <=3D m <=3D 16, that can be used to protect arbitrary media streams along the lines defined by the FECFRAME framework. Reed-Solomon codes belong to the class of Maximum Distance Separable (MDS) codes which means they offer optimal protection against packet erasures. They are also systematic codes, which means that the source symbols are part of the encoding symbols. The price to pay is a limit on the maximum source block size, on the maximum number of encoding symbols, and a computational complexity higher than that of LDPC codes for instance. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-03.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Mar 8 08:17:37 2012 Return-Path: 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 CBD5D21F8672; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:17:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 fbShWCdlJSzE; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:17:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFB521F8669; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:17:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120308161736.12575.47058.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:17:36 -0800 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] I-D Action: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-02.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:17:38 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the FEC Framework Working Group of the IE= TF. Title : Simple LDPC-Staircase Forward Error Correction (FEC) Sch= eme for FECFRAME Author(s) : Vincent Roca Mathieu Cunche Jerome Lacan Filename : draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-02.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2012-03-08 This document describes a fully-specified simple FEC scheme for LDPC- Staircase codes that can be used to protect media streams along the lines defined by the FECFRAME framework. These codes have many interesting properties: they are systematic codes, they perform close to ideal codes in many use-cases and they also feature very high encoding and decoding throughputs. LDPC-Staircase codes are therefore a good solution to protect a single high bitrate source flow, or to protect globally several mid-rate flows within a single FECFRAME instance. They are also a good solution whenever the processing load of a software encoder or decoder must be kept to a minimum. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-02.txt From vincent.roca@inria.fr Thu Mar 8 08:19:57 2012 Return-Path: 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 2B3D021F86A8 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:19:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.238, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 CpMI1PV3lvtL for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:19:56 -0800 (PST) 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 4C87B21F869A for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:19:56 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,552,1325458800"; d="scan'208";a="148282510" Received: from geve.inrialpes.fr ([194.199.24.116]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 08 Mar 2012 17:19:55 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Vincent Roca In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:19:55 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: To: Greg Shepherd X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WGLC draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-02 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:19:57 -0000 Everybody, I have received comments (in French) for the simple rs I-D (that for some of them also apply to the simple ldpc I-D since both documents are close to one another). I've updated both I-Ds accordingly since submissions will soon be closed. The changes: ** Section 3.1: in the definition of "FEC Source Packet", we used to say there is an **optional** Explicit Source FEC Payload ID. It turns out that this Explicit Source FPI is no longer optional in the scheme that is defined! NEW: (that MUST be present in the FEC scheme defined by the present document, see Section 5.1.2) ** Section 4.2. "ADU Block Creation": We omitted to mention it is required to consider the most stringent real-time requirements when several flows are globally protected. NEW The source ADU flows MAY have real-time constraints. When there are multiple flows, with different real-time constraints, let us consider the most stringent contraints (see [RFC6363], section 10.2, item 6 for recommendations when several flows are globally protected). ** Two typos have been corrected too. ** SDP is added in section 3.3. Cheers, Vincent On March 5, 2012, 18:32, Greg Shepherd wrote: > We're halfway through the two week timer and we've only had a single > response. We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote > of support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. > > Thanks, > Greg > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >> This starts a two week timer for WGLC of >> draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-02. Please read and respond to the list. >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs/ >> >> Thanks, >> Greg > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From ietf-ipr@ietf.org Mon Mar 19 10:50:57 2012 Return-Path: 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 BE0EB21F889F; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:50:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.458 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 g7QFVzTjTJdj; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20DE21F8878; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:50:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: watsonm@netflix.com, stockhammer@nomor.de, luby@qualcomm.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120319175054.32655.77611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:50:54 -0700 Cc: ipr-announce@ietf.org, fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] IPR Disclosure: QUALCOMM Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:50:57 -0000 Dear Mark Watson, Thomas Stockhammer, Michael Luby: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Raptor FEC Schemes for FECFRAME" (draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-03-08 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellec= tual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1711/). The = title of the IPR disclosure is "QUALCOMM Incorporated's Statement about IPR relat= ed to draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10.""); The IETF Secretariat From gjshep@gmail.com Thu Mar 22 11:07:48 2012 Return-Path: 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 B144421F850D for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:07:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 kT0-268BZmJN for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CA621F84FF for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so2282199bku.31 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:07:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+OO2cxDCeyzQrX3Z1ftwHqh8VrvdXqe44zfK5mK0wvg=; b=lckjwEkUF9Yg+h3D23AJW8E2ITNOv0t2ffzVlWxy1YN55JZQblzvZVQIpAn0mqsykr w5DabxVJOi0q95mOuiwT5ROiImhYd9Z3DZwZ/4V/FdZmuRwFJx/NixWODZcl+tus2MPL a+oDxKnXmo2MbwkzEfwW+2FQZ+gzWkGY8BNhFYQM+pX2vecAvWuO5fxvSCBp8Gp0kUCC Z+md8AIexgO+qPtGhs/iC7NQr3MtWrbupcaibmwX3uFXd6v8Mfn67mkdZON15VlkYBK+ whSYHnB3plNjD4py3IkfAqp0uX79jfKNVriPTUfu5Lf0pL4v4pgmfBUpJisHvKpyH5Kf tsAg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.156.216 with SMTP id y24mr3472696bkw.60.1332439666671; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.118.15 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:07:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:07:46 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: David Harrington Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:07:48 -0000 So far only Vincent has responded. I can't progress this as "consensus" without more input from the WG. Please respond ASAP. Thanks, Greg On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM, David Harrington wrot= e: > Hi, > > Thanks, > > It would be greatly helpful if that information is included in the docume= nt > 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 > Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:37:08 +0100 > To: David Harrington > Cc: > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] fecframe WGLCs > > Hello David, > > You're perfectly right.=A0We 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=A0are available. And if you do > want the check by yourself their=A0performance,=A0you 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, > > =A0 =A0Vincent > > > 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.=A0" > > 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 reviewe= d > the code in this=A0document, and this scheme significantly improves > performance for a use case that is important to me, which is <=85>. There= fore, > 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 sche= me, > 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 addr= ess > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > From gjshep@gmail.com Thu Mar 22 11:08:36 2012 Return-Path: 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 1842F21E8034 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:08:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 fpVBS7gO2yH2 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C61021E802D for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so2282879bku.31 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:08:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=+3CqX//jHcVWOZRuQR/BIZNu9trGupJOaApSsaFYMQk=; b=HwiQgBqzLpclTwabaGHRq8n6isVAsoY6CJEdlSpX2/lCIGUBdsEsFM6ZXf49Gv/KwM uzppVgIHy1JQOTcS009f09syQ1fd1WtyDMfXsMZV28bcRJDaiKO6/EI6SUzRzrSXCi/Z aWMNErq+HjJfzmZ2rs3gDq6jwAi+5o5GI7d0k5R+bPsbqxqIpqeGoPMgpKr7Txrk4IUZ 3WhD30lK5dLslT3S7Hy5/NQZRkjBlG+nXeAyX2rgxVZpqCru3I86OoKPRDk/UasBKgyr 1bkwDXJF6c7uaTdx8AJJ1HQpKwCqrzBxDYNGr0PefO1gAZGazFNG+hWbTpB7Iady0185 d5Ng== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.154.209 with SMTP id p17mr3631388bkw.6.1332439714416; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.118.15 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:08:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:08:34 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: fecframe@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Fecframe] draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp WGLC X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:08:36 -0000 Please resound ASAP. WG Consensus requires input from the WG. Greg On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > We're halfway through the two week timer and the list has been silent. > We need "consensus" and that requires input from you. A vote of > support IS feedback too. Please respond soon so we can progress. > > Thanks, > Greg > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >> This starts a 2 week WGLC for Pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (CDP) >> for Protecting Multiple Source Flows in FEC Framework, >> draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-02: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp/ >> >> Please read and respond to the list. >> >> Thanks, >> Greg