Subject: [Fecframe] Adopt?

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:50:19 -0800

*,

As per the discussion at the last WG meeting, can you each respond
with your comments (approval/ disapproval) for the group to adopt the
following drafts:

- draft-roca-fecframe-simple-rs-01
- draft-galanos-fecframe-rtp-reedsolomon-02
- draft-roca-fecframe-ldpc-01

Thanks,
Greg

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:33:44 -0800

As I indicated in the meeting as well, I personally wanna see these drafts to be completed so that we can have a more variety of FEC schemes. The RTP payload draft is also useful to have it.

-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 12:50 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Fecframe] Adopt?
> 
> *,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe

---

From: "Roberto Flaiani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:53:29 -0000

I support the three drafts below  going forward as WG items.
Each application has its own requirements in terms of FEC complexity,
delay and degree of protection, so it is important to have a choice of
multiple FEC schemes to choose from.
Roberto Flaiani

RADVISION

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 6:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Fecframe] Adopt?

*,

As per the discussion at the last WG meeting, can you each respond with
your comments (approval/ disapproval) for the group to adopt the
following drafts:

Thanks,
Greg

---

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:51:39 +0100

Hello,

For those who didn't attend Beijing meeting, you can find
related information here:

Concerning the two Reed-Solomon I-Ds:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/fecframe-1.ppt

Concerning the LDPC I-D:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/fecframe-2.ppt

Cheers,

   Vincent, on behalf of the authors

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:30:48 -0500

Hi,

Not to be a pain in the butt, but to be a pain in the butt ... ;-)

Your charter is explicit:
"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."

We need more than just approval/disapproval from the WG participants.
We need multiple, prior, detailed reviews of the FEC code by
independent experts from both the IETF and the broader community.

Please provide detailed reviews of the FEC code, and solicit detailed
reviews from others in the broader community. Then we can talk about
adopting new WG drafts.

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
[email-masked] (preferred for ietf)
[email-masked]
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:06:46 +0900

Yes, you are just being a pain in the butt. Adoption as a working group item is not the same acceptance. 

Greg

Sent from my iPhone

---

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:05:56 +0100

Hello Greg, David and everybody,

Yes, let us follow the charter since this latter is explicit on
how to proceed.

1/ Concerning the two Reed-Solomon I-Ds, there are so many
use-cases relying on those codes, including for the "erasure
channel", both for real-time and non real-time flow protection,
that it does *not* make sense to solicit any external review.
Additionally they are used in the most simplest manner in the
proposed schemes IMHO. Tell me if you disagree...

2/ Concerning our LDPC-Staircase I-D, the situation is different,
so let's apply the rules. Two elements:

- LDPC-Staircase codes are already well known by the IETF
    community, they are not brand new codes. See RFC 5170.

- their applicability to certain FECFRAME use-cases has been
    studied, and the results published. See:

     K. Matsuzono, J. Detchart, M. Cunche, V. Roca, H. Asaeda,
     "Performance Analysis of a High-Performance Real-Time
      Application with Several AL-FEC Schemes",
     35th Annual IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks
     2010 (LCN 2010), October 2010.

http://planete.inrialpes.fr/people/roca/doc/lcn10_dvts_fecframe_2010jul25_hal.pdf

     This is the paper that I quickly introduced at Beijing during
     the meeting.

Anyway I'll solicit external opinions as you suggested.
Regards,

   Vincent

--
   Vincent Roca, INRIA research institute, France
   http://planete.inrialpes.fr/people/roca/

On 11/12/10 08:06, Greg Shepherd wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2010, at 8:30, "David Harrington"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>