"Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block", Michael Luby, Mark Watson, Lorenzo Vicisano, 16-Nov-07. ( bytes)

Layered Coding Transport (LCT) provides transport level support for reliable content delivery and stream delivery protocols. LCT is specifically designed to support protocols using IP multicast, but also provides support to protocols that use unicast. LCT is compatible with congestion control that provides multiple rate delivery to receivers and is also compatible with coding techniques that provide reliable delivery of content. This document obsoletes RFC3451

"Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", Michael Luby, Mark Watson, Lorenzo Vicisano, 16-Nov-07. ( bytes)

This document describes the Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) protocol, a massively scalable reliable content delivery protocol. Asynchronous Layered Coding combines the Layered Coding Transport (LCT) building block, a multiple rate congestion control building block and the Forward Error Correction (FEC) building block to provide congestion controlled reliable asynchronous delivery of content to an unlimited number of concurrent receivers from a single sender. This document obsoletes RFC3450.

"Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes", Mark Watson, 16-Nov-07. ( bytes)

This document provides FEC Scheme specifications according to the RMT FEC Building Block for the Compact No-Code FEC Scheme, the Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC Scheme, the Small Block Systematic FEC Scheme and the Compact FEC Scheme.

"Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) Staircase and Triangle Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes", Vincent Roca, Christoph Neumann, David Furodet, 23-Jan-08. ( bytes)

This document describes two Fully-Specified FEC Schemes, LDPC- Staircase and LDPC-Triangle, and their application to the reliable delivery of data objects on the packet erasure channel (i.e., a communication path where packets are either received without any corruption or discarded during transmission). These systematic FEC codes belong to the well known class of ``Low Density Parity Check'' (LDPC) codes, and are large block FEC codes in the sense of RFC3453.

"NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocol", Brian Adamson, 15-Jan-08. ( bytes)

This document describes the messages and procedures of the Negative- acknowledgment (NACK) Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) protocol. This protocol is designed to provide end-to-end reliable transport of bulk data objects or streams over generic IP multicast routing and forwarding services. NORM uses a selective, negative acknowledgment mechanism for transport reliability and offers additional protocol mechanisms to allow for operation with minimal "a priori" coordination among senders and receivers. A congestion control scheme is specified to allow the NORM protocol to fairly share available network bandwidth with other transport protocols such as Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). It is capable of operating with both reciprocal multicast routing among senders and receivers and with asymmetric connectivity (possibly a unicast return path) between the senders and receivers. The protocol offers a number of features to allow different types of applications or possibly other higher level transport protocols to utilize its service in different ways. The protocol leverages the use of FEC-based repair and other IETF reliable multicast transport (RMT) building blocks in its design. (This Internet-Draft is also available in PostScript format [ bytes]. PDF format [ bytes].)

"Multicast Negative-Acknowledgment (NACK) Building Blocks", Brian Adamson, Carsten Bormann, University London, Joseph Macker, 2-Apr-08. ( bytes)

This document discusses the creation of reliable multicast protocols utilizing negative- acknowledgment (NACK) feedback. The rationale for protocol design goals and assumptions are presented. Technical challenges for NACK-based (and in some cases general) reliable multicast protocol operation are identified. These goals and challenges are resolved into a set of functional "building blocks" that address different aspects of reliable multicast protocol operation. It is anticipated that these building blocks will be useful in generating different instantiations of reliable multicast protocols. (This Internet-Draft is also available in PDF format [ bytes].)

"Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes", Jerome Lacan, Vincent Roca, Jani Peltotalo, Sami Peltotalo, 12-Nov-07. ( bytes)

This document describes a Fully-Specified Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for the Reed-Solomon FEC codes over GF(2^^m), with m in {2..16}, and its application to the reliable delivery of data objects on the packet erasure channel (i.e., a communication path where packets are either received without any corruption or discarded during transmission). This document also describes a Fully-Specified FEC Scheme for the special case of Reed-Solomon codes over GF(2^^8) when there is no encoding symbol group. Finally, in the context of the Under-Specified Small Block Systematic FEC Scheme (FEC Encoding ID 129), this document assigns an FEC Instance ID to the special case of Reed-Solomon codes over GF(2^^8). Reed-Solomon codes belong to the class of Maximum Distance Separable (MDS) codes, i.e., they enable a receiver to recover the k source symbols from any set of k received symbols. The schemes described here are compatible with the implementation from Luigi Rizzo.

"Security and Reliable Multicast Transport Protocols: Discussions and Guidelines", Brian Adamson, Vincent Roca, 25-Feb-08. ( bytes)

This document describes some security risks of the Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Working Group set of building blocks and protocols. An emphasis is placed on risks that might be resolved in the scope of transport protocol design. However, relevant security issues related to IP Multicast control-plane and other concerns not strictly within the scope of reliable transport protocol design are also discussed. The document also begins an exploration of approaches that could be embraced to mitigate these risks. The purpose of this document is to provide a consolidated security discussion and provide a basis for further discussion and potential resolution of any significant security issues that may exist in the current set of RMT standards. (This Internet-Draft is also available in PDF format [ bytes].)

Return to Internet-Draft directory.

Return to IETF home page.